arXiv subjects

Helena Vasconcelos

Publications and source records attributed to Helena Vasconcelos.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

FocusGen: Expanding Visual Design Exploration with a Simulated Focus Group of Persona Agents

Creative professionals rarely design for themselves--they design for audiences whose preferences they must anticipate. Yet current text-to-image exploration tools derive diversity entirely from the designer's own input--their prompts, their chosen dimensions, their search queries--confining exploration to what the designer already knows to look for. We present FocusGen, an interactive system that introduces external perspectives into visual design exploration through a "virtual focus group" of simulated persona agents. In contrast to prior persona systems in which multiple agents converge as critics on a single evolving artifact, FocusGen uses personas as parallel generators: each agent--constructed from demographic data, a procedurally generated backstory, and aesthetic preferences elicited through interviews--independently drives an iterative generation loop that produces its own visual concept, transforming one design brief into a spectrum of audience-conditioned directions. With real human participants, we confirm that the iterative refinement loop produces outputs people prefer over zero-shot generation. With synthetic agents at scale, we show that persona conditioning yields higher visual diversity than a generic-assistant baseline--measured by CLIP distance and corroborated by human perceptual judgments--and that open-ended preference interviews yield more diverse outputs than structured ones for both human and synthetic cohorts, while also revealing that agent cohorts recover only part of the diversity of comparable human cohorts. A qualitative study with 16 creative professionals suggests FocusGen helps designers discover unanticipated directions, overcome fixation, and probe audience contexts--while surfacing stereotyping risks that we analyze. We position FocusGen as a divergence scaffold for early-stage ideation rather than a substitute for audience research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

People Can Accurately Predict Behavior of Complex Algorithms That Are Available, Compact, and Aligned

Users trust algorithms more when they can predict the algorithms' behavior. Simple algorithms trivially yield predictively accurate mental models, but modern AI algorithms have often been assumed too complex for people to build predictive mental models, especially in the social media domain. In this paper, we describe conditions under which even complex algorithms can yield predictive mental models, opening up opportunities for a broader set of human-centered algorithms. We theorize that users will form an accurate predictive mental model of an algorithm's behavior if and only if the algorithm simultaneously satisfies three criteria: (1) cognitive availability of the underlying concepts being modeled, (2) concept compactness (does it form a single cognitive construct?), and (3) high alignment between the person's and algorithm's execution of the concept. We evaluate this theory through a pre-registered experiment (N=1250) where users predict behavior of 25 social media feed ranking algorithms that vary on these criteria. We find that even complex (e.g., LLM-based) algorithms enjoy accurate prediction rates when they meet all criteria, and even simple (e.g., basic term count) algorithms fail to be predictable when a single criterion fails. We also find that these criteria determine outcomes beyond prediction accuracy, such as which mental models users deploy to make their predictions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales

Large language models (LLMs) often generate natural language rationales -- free-form explanations that help improve performance on complex reasoning tasks and enhance interpretability for human users. However, evaluating these rationales remains challenging. While recent work has relied on binary preference judgments from humans or LLM judges, such evaluations are often opaque and coarse-grained, offering limited insight into what makes one rationale better than another. In this work, we rethink preference evaluation for LLM-generated rationales by asking: (1) What attributes define good rationales? (2) Can human preferences be explained by these attributes? (3) Can attribute-based evaluation overcome the limitations of binary comparisons? We identify a set of key rationale attributes from prior literature and assess them using automatic metrics, LLM judgments, and human annotations. We then analyze two standard human preference datasets MT Bench and Chatbot Arena using SHAP to identify which attributes best explain human preference outcomes. Finally, we re-evaluate model-generated rationales using attribute-specific ELO scores, revealing more nuanced model comparisons and insights. Our findings suggest that fine-grained attribute evaluations can better characterize rationale quality and guide future research toward more interpretable and reliable evaluation practices.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Clarify: Improving Model Robustness With Natural Language Corrections

The standard way to teach models is by feeding them lots of data. However, this approach often teaches models incorrect ideas because they pick up on misleading signals in the data. To prevent such misconceptions, we must necessarily provide additional information beyond the training data. Prior methods incorporate additional instance-level supervision, such as labels for misleading features or additional labels for debiased data. However, such strategies require a large amount of labeler effort. We hypothesize that people are good at providing textual feedback at the concept level, a capability that existing teaching frameworks do not leverage. We propose Clarify, a novel interface and method for interactively correcting model misconceptions. Through Clarify, users need only provide a short text description of a model's consistent failure patterns. Then, in an entirely automated way, we use such descriptions to improve the training process. Clarify is the first end-to-end system for user model correction. Our user studies show that non-expert users can successfully describe model misconceptions via Clarify, leading to increased worst-case performance in two datasets. We additionally conduct a case study on a large-scale image dataset, ImageNet, using Clarify to find and rectify 31 novel hard subpopulations.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions

Large-scale generative models enabled the development of AI-powered code completion tools to assist programmers in writing code. However, much like other AI-powered tools, AI-powered code completions are not always accurate, potentially introducing bugs or even security vulnerabilities into code if not properly detected and corrected by a human programmer. One technique that has been proposed and implemented to help programmers identify potential errors is to highlight uncertain tokens. However, there have been no empirical studies exploring the effectiveness of this technique -- nor investigating the different and not-yet-agreed-upon notions of uncertainty in the context of generative models. We explore the question of whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code when collaborating with an AI-powered code completion tool, and if so, what measure of uncertainty best fits programmers' needs. Through a mixed-methods study with 30 programmers, we compare three conditions: providing the AI system's code completion alone, highlighting tokens with the lowest likelihood of being generated by the underlying generative model, and highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited by a programmer. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits, and is subjectively preferred by study participants. In contrast, highlighting tokens according to their probability of being generated does not provide any benefit over the baseline with no highlighting. We further explore the design space of how to convey uncertainty in AI-powered code completion tools, and find that programmers prefer highlights that are granular, informative, interpretable, and not overwhelming.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2022

Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Making

Prior work has identified a resilient phenomenon that threatens the performance of human-AI decision-making teams: overreliance, when people agree with an AI, even when it is incorrect. Surprisingly, overreliance does not reduce when the AI produces explanations for its predictions, compared to only providing predictions. Some have argued that overreliance results from cognitive biases or uncalibrated trust, attributing overreliance to an inevitability of human cognition. By contrast, our paper argues that people strategically choose whether or not to engage with an AI explanation, demonstrating empirically that there are scenarios where AI explanations reduce overreliance. To achieve this, we formalize this strategic choice in a cost-benefit framework, where the costs and benefits of engaging with the task are weighed against the costs and benefits of relying on the AI. We manipulate the costs and benefits in a maze task, where participants collaborate with a simulated AI to find the exit of a maze. Through 5 studies (N = 731), we find that costs such as task difficulty (Study 1), explanation difficulty (Study 2, 3), and benefits such as monetary compensation (Study 4) affect overreliance. Finally, Study 5 adapts the Cognitive Effort Discounting paradigm to quantify the utility of different explanations, providing further support for our framework. Our results suggest that some of the null effects found in literature could be due in part to the explanation not sufficiently reducing the costs of verifying the AI's prediction.

cs.HC↗