arXiv subjects

Kenneth Holstein

Publications and source records attributed to Kenneth Holstein.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

"I want to be pushed, I want to grow": Enabling social workers to design evaluations of LLM augmentation in their work

Workers are increasingly asked to adopt AI systems to assist their work, yet are rarely given a voice in defining what meaningful AI augmentation should look like or how to evaluate for it. In this paper, we propose worker-driven AI measurement---a bottom-up approach to AI evaluation where workers collaboratively shape decisions about which tasks AI should augment, what "successful" augmentation looks like, and how it should be measured. We explore how to support this through a case study with 19 workers from a local school social work organization. Through a series of eight workshops, workers iteratively develop their own measurement goals for AI evaluation, systematize these goals, and then design a benchmark to capture how effectively an LLM can "challenge" them to reflect on their own assumptions and biases in the context of their day-to-day work. Workers collaboratively design and refine an LLM-as-a-judge rubric based on their professional and lived expertise. In validations of the worker-created benchmark, we find that there is strong agreement between worker and LLM judge ratings and that the resulting benchmark can differentiate performance across six state-of-the-art LLMs. Based on our case study, we discuss opportunities for future work to support worker-driven AI measurement as a complementary approach to existing top-down AI evaluation approaches.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

What We Know about Responsible AI Practices in Industry: A Half Decade of Empirical Research

Responsible AI (RAI) has become a central concern for technology companies, regulators, and the public. How industry practitioners interpret, implement, and sustain RAI work directly shapes the design and deployment of AI systems. As empirical scholarship examining RAI practices in industry has rapidly expanded, findings are dispersed across studies that focus on different roles, organizational contexts, and interventions. This work synthesizes current knowledge through a literature review of 161 empirical studies spanning six years, each engaging industry practitioners via interviews, surveys, workshops, ethnographies, and other methods. Our synthesis reveals both meaningful progress and persistent challenges in industry RAI practice. Practitioner awareness has increased, RAI activities have become more professionalized, and interventions such as toolkits and guidelines are more widely adopted. At the same time, practitioners continue to face substantial barriers, including limited training, uneven organizational support, and a lack of interventions tailored to day-to-day work practices. By consolidating and organizing these findings, we provide a more complete account of industry RAI than any single study to date. We conclude by discussing implications for RAI researchers, practitioners seeking to adopt effective practices, and policymakers aiming to ground governance efforts in the realities of industry contexts.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

PersonaTeaming: Supporting Persona-Driven Red-Teaming for Generative AI

Recent developments in AI safety research have called for red-teaming methods that effectively surface potential risks posed by generative AI models, with growing emphasis on how red-teamers' backgrounds and perspectives shape their strategies and the risks they uncover. While automated red-teaming approaches promise to complement human red-teaming through larger-scale exploration, existing automated approaches do not account for human identities and rarely incorporate human inputs. In this work, we explore persona-driven red-teaming to advance both automated red-teaming and human-AI collaboration. We first develop PersonaTeaming Workflow, which incorporates personas into the adversarial prompt generation process to explore a wider spectrum of adversarial strategies. Compared to RainbowPlus, a state-of-the-art automated red-teaming method, PersonaTeaming Workflow achieves higher attack success rates while maintaining prompt diversity. However, since automated personas only approximate real human perspectives, we further instantiate PersonaTeaming Workflow as PersonaTeaming Playground, a user-facing interface that enables red-teamers to author their own personas and collaborate with AI to mutate and refine prompts. In a user study with 11 industry practitioners, we found that PersonaTeaming Playground enabled diverse red-teaming strategies and outputs that practitioners perceived as useful, and that AI-generated suggestions in the PersonaTeaming Playground encouraged out-of-the-box thinking even when practitioners did not follow them strictly. Together, our work advances both automated and human-in-the-loop approaches to red-teaming, while shedding light on interaction patterns and design insights for supporting human-AI collaboration in generative AI red-teaming.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

ComplLLM: Fine-tuning LLMs to Discover Complementary Signals for Decision-making

Multi-agent decision pipelines can outperform single agent workflows when complementarity holds, i.e., different agents bring unique information to the table to inform a final decision. We propose ComplLLM, a post-training framework based on decision theory that fine-tunes a decision-assistant LLM using complementary information as reward to output signals that complement existing agent decisions. We validate ComplLLM on synthetic and real-world tasks involving domain experts, demonstrating how the approach recovers known complementary information and produces plausible explanations of complementary signals to support downstream decision-makers.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Toward Third-Party Assurance of AI Systems: Design Requirements, Prototype, and Early Testing

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems proliferate, the need for systematic, transparent, and actionable processes for evaluating them is growing. While many resources exist to support AI evaluation, they have several limitations. Few address both the process of designing, developing, and deploying an AI system and the outcomes it produces. Furthermore, few are end-to-end and operational, give actionable guidance, or present evidence of usability or effectiveness in practice. In this paper, we introduce a third-party AI assurance framework that addresses these gaps. We focus on third-party assurance to prevent conflict of interest and ensure credibility and accountability of the process. We begin by distinguishing assurance from audits in several key dimensions. Then, following design principles, we reflect on the shortcomings of existing resources to identify a set of design requirements for AI assurance. We then construct a prototype of an assurance process that consists of (1) a responsibility assignment matrix to determine the different levels of involvement each stakeholder has at each stage of the AI lifecycle, (2) an interview protocol for each stakeholder of an AI system, (3) a maturity matrix to assess AI systems' adherence to best practices, and (4) a template for an assurance report that draws from more mature assurance practices in business accounting. We conduct early validation of our AI assurance framework by applying the framework to two distinct AI use cases -- a business document tagging tool for downstream processing in a large private firm, and a housing resource allocation tool in a public agency -- and conducting six expert validation interviews. Our findings show early evidence that our AI assurance framework is sound and comprehensive, usable across different organizational contexts, and effective at identifying bespoke issues with AI systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Seeing Twice: How Side-by-Side T2I Comparison Changes Auditing Strategies

While generative AI systems have gained popularity in diverse applications, their potential to produce harmful outputs limits their trustworthiness and utility. A small but growing line of research has explored tools and processes to better engage non-AI expert users in auditing generative AI systems. In this work, we present the design and evaluation of MIRAGE, a web-based tool exploring a "contrast-first" workflow that allows users to pick up to four different text-to-image (T2I) models, view their images side-by-side, and provide feedback on model performance on a single screen. In our user study with fifteen participants, we used four predefined models for consistency, with only a single model initially being shown. We found that most participants shifted from analyzing individual images to general model output patterns once the side-by-side step appeared with all four models; several participants coined persistent "model personalities" (e.g., cartoonish, saturated) that helped them form expectations about how each model would behave on future prompts. Bilingual participants also surfaced a language-fidelity gap, as English prompts produced more accurate images than Portuguese or Chinese, an issue often overlooked when dealing with a single model. These findings suggest that simple comparative interfaces can accelerate bias discovery and reshape how people think about generative models.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

AI Failure Loops in Devalued Work: The Confluence of Overconfidence in AI and Underconfidence in Worker Expertise

A growing body of literature has focused on understanding and addressing workplace AI design failures. However, past work has largely overlooked the role of the devaluation of worker expertise in shaping the dynamics of AI development and deployment. In this paper, we examine the case of feminized labor: a class of devalued occupations historically misnomered as ``women's work,'' such as social work, K-12 teaching, and home healthcare. Drawing on literature on AI deployments in feminized labor contexts, we conceptualize AI Failure Loops: a set of interwoven, socio-technical failure modes that help explain how the systemic devaluation of workers' expertise negatively impacts, and is impacted by, AI design, evaluation, and governance practices. These failures demonstrate how misjudgments on the automatability of workers' skills can lead to AI deployments that fail to bring value to workers and, instead, further diminish the visibility of workers' expertise. We discuss research and design implications for workplace AI, especially for devalued occupations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Prototyping Multimodal GenAI Real-Time Agents with Counterfactual Replays and Hybrid Wizard-of-Oz

Recent advancements in multimodal generative AI (GenAI) enable the creation of personal context-aware real-time agents that, for example, can augment user workflows by following their on-screen activities and providing contextual assistance. However, prototyping such experiences is challenging, especially when supporting people with domain-specific tasks using real-time inputs such as speech and screen recordings. While prototyping an LLM-based proactive support agent system, we found that existing prototyping and evaluation methods were insufficient to anticipate the nuanced situational complexity and contextual immediacy required. To overcome these challenges, we explored a novel user-centered prototyping approach that combines counterfactual video replay prompting and hybrid Wizard-of-Oz methods to iteratively design and refine agent behaviors. This paper discusses our prototyping experiences, highlighting successes and limitations, and offers a practical guide and an open-source toolkit for UX designers, HCI researchers, and AI toolmakers to build more user-centered and context-aware multimodal agents.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Botender: Supporting Communities in Collaboratively Designing AI Agents through Case-Based Provocations

AI agents, or bots, serve important roles in online communities. However, they are often designed by outsiders or a few tech-savvy members, leading to bots that may not align with the broader community's needs. How might communities collectively shape the behavior of community bots? We present Botender, a system that enables communities to collaboratively design LLM-powered bots without coding. With Botender, community members can directly propose, iterate on, and deploy custom bot behaviors tailored to community needs. Botender facilitates testing and iteration on bot behavior through case-based provocations: interaction scenarios generated to spark user reflection and discussion around desirable bot behavior. A validation study found these provocations more useful than standard test cases for revealing improvement opportunities and surfacing disagreements. During a five-day deployment across six Discord servers, Botender supported communities in tailoring bot behavior to their specific needs, showcasing the usefulness of case-based provocations in facilitating collaborative bot design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Doubly-Robust LLM-as-a-Judge: Externally Valid Estimation with Imperfect Personas

As Generative AI (GenAI) systems see growing adoption, a key concern involves the external validity of evaluations, or the extent to which they generalize from lab-based to real-world deployment conditions. Threats to the external validity of GenAI evaluations arise when the source sample of human raters and system outputs used to obtain a system quality estimate differs from the target distribution at deployment time. In this work, we propose a doubly-robust estimation framework designed to address this evaluation sampling bias. Key to our approach is the use of "persona" ratings produced by prompting an LLM evaluator (i.e., an LLM-as-a-judge) to behave as a human rater with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Our doubly-robust framework combines these informative yet imperfect persona ratings with human ratings obtained under evaluation sampling bias to produce statistically valid system quality estimates. In particular, we show that our approach yields valid system quality estimates when either (i) a model trained to predict human ratings using persona ratings and source data observed under sampling bias, or (ii) a reweighting model that corrects for sampling bias is of sufficient quality. We validate our framework theoretically and via a novel Persona Simulation Framework (PSF) designed to systematically manipulate persona quality and the degree of evaluation sampling bias present in source data. Our work provides a principled foundation for combining imperfect persona ratings with human ratings observed under sampling bias to obtain valid system quality estimates.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

PolicyPad: Collaborative Prototyping of LLM Policies

As LLMs gain adoption in high-stakes domains like mental health, domain experts are increasingly consulted to provide input into policies governing their behavior. From an observation of 19 policymaking workshops with 9 experts over 15 weeks, we identified opportunities to better support rapid experimentation, feedback, and iteration for collaborative policy design processes. We present PolicyPad, an interactive system that facilitates the emerging practice of LLM policy prototyping by drawing from established UX prototyping practices, including heuristic evaluation and storyboarding. Using PolicyPad, policy designers can collaborate on drafting a policy in real time while independently testing policy-informed model behavior with usage scenarios. We evaluate PolicyPad through workshops with 8 groups of 22 domain experts in mental health and law, finding that PolicyPad enhanced collaborative dynamics during policy design, enabled tight feedback loops, and led to novel policy contributions. Overall, our work paves expert-informed paths for advancing AI alignment and safety.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Funding AI for Good: A Call for Meaningful Engagement

Artificial Intelligence for Social Good (AI4SG) is a growing area that explores AI's potential to address social issues, such as public health. Yet prior work has shown limited evidence of its tangible benefits for intended communities, and projects frequently face real-world deployment and sustainability challenges. While existing HCI literature on AI4SG initiatives primarily focuses on the mechanisms of funded projects and their outcomes, much less attention has been given to the upstream funding agendas that influence project approaches. In this work, we conducted a reflexive thematic analysis of 35 funding documents, representing about $410 million USD in total investments. We uncovered a spectrum of conceptual framings of AI4SG and the approaches that funding rhetoric promoted: from biasing towards technology capacities (more techno-centric) to emphasizing contextual understanding of the social problems at hand alongside technology capacities (more balanced). Drawing on our findings on how funding documents construct AI4SG, we offer recommendations for funders to embed more balanced approaches in future funding call designs. We further discuss implications for how the HCI community can positively shape AI4SG funding design processes.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Measurement as Bricolage: Examining How Data Scientists Construct Target Variables for Predictive Modeling Tasks

Data scientists often formulate predictive modeling tasks involving fuzzy, hard-to-define concepts, such as the "authenticity" of student writing or the "healthcare need" of a patient. Yet the process by which data scientists translate fuzzy concepts into a concrete, proxy target variable remains poorly understood. We interview fifteen data scientists in education (N=8) and healthcare (N=7) to understand how they construct target variables for predictive modeling tasks. Our findings suggest that data scientists construct target variables through a bricolage process, in which they use creative and pragmatic approaches to make do with the limited data at hand. Data scientists attempt to satisfy five major criteria for a target variable through bricolage: validity, simplicity, predictability, portability, and resource requirements. To achieve this, data scientists adaptively apply problem (re)formulation strategies, such as swapping out one candidate target variable for another when the first fails to meet certain criteria (e.g., predictability), or composing multiple outcomes into a single target variable to capture a more holistic set of modeling objectives. Based on our findings, we present opportunities for future HCI, CSCW, and ML research to better support the art and science of target variable construction.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Making the Right Thing: Bridging HCI and Responsible AI in Early-Stage AI Concept Selection

AI projects often fail due to financial, technical, ethical, or user acceptance challenges -- failures frequently rooted in early-stage decisions. While HCI and Responsible AI (RAI) research emphasize this, practical approaches for identifying promising concepts early remain limited. Drawing on Research through Design, this paper investigates how early-stage AI concept sorting in commercial settings can reflect RAI principles. Through three design experiments -- including a probe study with industry practitioners -- we explored methods for evaluating risks and benefits using multidisciplinary collaboration. Participants demonstrated strong receptivity to addressing RAI concerns early in the process and effectively identified low-risk, high-benefit AI concepts. Our findings highlight the potential of a design-led approach to embed ethical and service design thinking at the front end of AI innovation. By examining how practitioners reason about AI concepts, our study invites HCI and RAI communities to see early-stage innovation as a critical space for engaging ethical and commercial considerations together.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Exploring the Potential of Metacognitive Support Agents for Human-AI Co-Creation

Despite the potential of generative AI (GenAI) design tools to enhance design processes, professionals often struggle to integrate AI into their workflows. Fundamental cognitive challenges include the need to specify all design criteria as distinct parameters upfront (intent formulation) and designers' reduced cognitive involvement in the design process due to cognitive offloading, which can lead to insufficient problem exploration, underspecification, and limited ability to evaluate outcomes. Motivated by these challenges, we envision novel metacognitive support agents that assist designers in working more reflectively with GenAI. To explore this vision, we conducted exploratory prototyping through a Wizard of Oz elicitation study with 20 mechanical designers probing multiple metacognitive support strategies. We found that agent-supported users created more feasible designs than non-supported users, with differing impacts between support strategies. Based on these findings, we discuss opportunities and tradeoffs of metacognitive support agents and considerations for future AI-based design tools.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Supporting AI-Augmented Meta-Decision Making with InDecision

From school admissions to hiring and investment decisions, the first step behind many high-stakes decision-making processes is "deciding how to decide." Formulating effective criteria to guide decision-making requires an iterative process of exploration, reflection, and discovery. Yet, this process remains under-supported in practice. In this short paper, we outline an opportunity space for AI-driven tools that augment human meta-decision making. We draw upon prior literature to propose a set of design goals for future AI tools aimed at supporting human meta-decision making. We then illustrate these ideas through InDecision, a mixed-initiative tool designed to support the iterative development of decision criteria. Based on initial findings from designing and piloting InDecision with users, we discuss future directions for AI-augmented meta-decision making.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacy

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm, in which a judge LLM system replaces human raters in rating the outputs of other generative AI (GenAI) systems, plays a critical role in scaling and standardizing GenAI evaluations. To validate such judge systems, evaluators assess human--judge agreement by first collecting multiple human ratings for each item in a validation corpus, then aggregating the ratings into a single, per-item gold label rating. For many items, however, rating criteria may admit multiple valid interpretations, so a human or LLM rater may deem multiple ratings "reasonable" or "correct." We call this condition rating indeterminacy. Problematically, many rating tasks that contain rating indeterminacy rely on forced-choice elicitation, whereby raters are instructed to select only one rating for each item. In this paper, we introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy. We draw theoretical connections between different measures of judge system performance under different human--judge agreement metrics, and different rating elicitation and aggregation schemes. We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias LLM-as-a-judge validation. Through extensive experiments involving 11 real-world rating tasks and 9 commercial LLMs, we show that standard validation approaches that rely upon forced-choice ratings select judge systems that are highly suboptimal, performing as much as 31% worse than judge systems selected by our approach that uses multi-label "response set" ratings to account for rating indeterminacy. We conclude with concrete recommendations for more principled approaches to LLM-as-a-judge validation.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Intent Tagging: Exploring Micro-Prompting Interactions for Supporting Granular Human-GenAI Co-Creation Workflows

Despite Generative AI (GenAI) systems' potential for enhancing content creation, users often struggle to effectively integrate GenAI into their creative workflows. Core challenges include misalignment of AI-generated content with user intentions (intent elicitation and alignment), user uncertainty around how to best communicate their intents to the AI system (prompt formulation), and insufficient flexibility of AI systems to support diverse creative workflows (workflow flexibility). Motivated by these challenges, we created IntentTagger: a system for slide creation based on the notion of Intent Tags - small, atomic conceptual units that encapsulate user intent - for exploring granular and non-linear micro-prompting interactions for Human-GenAI co-creation workflows. Our user study with 12 participants provides insights into the value of flexibly expressing intent across varying levels of ambiguity, meta-intent elicitation, and the benefits and challenges of intent tag-driven workflows. We conclude by discussing the broader implications of our findings and design considerations for GenAI-supported content creation workflows.

cs.HC↗