arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Qianou Ma

Publications and source records attributed to Qianou Ma.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

OdysSim: Building Foundation Models for Human Behavior Simulation

Large language models are increasingly deployed as human simulators for interactive evaluation and social simulation. Yet helpfulness-driven post-training pulls them toward a homogeneous, overly agreeable assistant register, creating a behavioral Sim2Real gap. We present OdysSim, the largest open systematic investigation of behavioral foundation models, i.e., models trained to simulate human behavior at scale. We propose SOUL, a taxonomy of five capability axes (CONV, SS, COG, ROLE, EVAL) that unifies 62 datasets and 23 benchmark tasks under one framework. Specifically, we curate the OdysSim corpus (21.4M interactions, 10B tokens, retrofitted with back-generated social contexts), construct the SOUL-Index benchmark, and develop an end-to-end training recipe combining midtraining, task-specific RL, and expert distillation. The resulting open 8B OSim model ranks first or tied-first on 8 of 23 tasks, outperforming any individual frontier model by this count, with the strongest gains on conversational and social tasks. Its outputs are also more human-like in length, formatting, and word choice, and it transfers zero-shot to out-of-distribution user simulation on $τ$-bench, nearly matching real users on reaction alignment (93.2 vs. 93.5). We further show that LLM-as-judge RL induces reward-hacking patterns, and that our detectors can mitigate them during post-training. Together, our findings suggest that behavioral foundation models require rethinking the LLM training paradigm. We release all artifacts to support future research.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Efficient Test-Time Adaptation through Human-AI Interaction

AI agents are trained on population-scale data to encode broad capabilities spanning those of many practitioners. Yet the artifacts they produce rarely meet the personal bar professionals need to stake their reputation on. On realistic, open-ended tasks where success criteria are heterogeneous and insufficiently documented, individual expertise lives precisely in the elevation and departure from the average. In practice, iterative human-agent interaction surfaces criteria that users cannot fully specify up front, yet apply repeatedly across tasks. We argue this cross-session interaction data is a rich, underused signal for closing the gap to individual expertise. In this work, we propose test-time adaptation through human-agent interaction (TAHI), which integrates these signals into agent context and weights, and crystallizes each user's training and evaluation criteria via an evolving rubric module. We adapt agents to 30 individuals in two high-utility domains, writing and visual creation, on a total of 600 tasks. Our agents improve solo task success by 4.5-20.9% within only tens of tasks. Meanwhile, our evolving rubric module serves as a scalable annotation tool, creating evaluation rubrics that catch 16.0-22.3% more failures than those from LMs or humans alone. While agents are adapted towards individuals, we show these personalized agents also produce improvements in success of up to 8.8% that generalize across users.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Mind the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulation for Agentic Tasks

As NLP evaluation shifts from static benchmarks to multi-turn interactive settings, LLM-based simulators have become widely used as user proxies, serving two roles: generating user turns and providing evaluation signals. Yet, these simulations are frequently assumed to be faithful to real human behaviors, often without rigorous verification. We formalize the Sim2Real gap in user simulation and present the first study running the full $τ$-bench protocol with real humans (451 participants, 165 tasks), benchmarking 31 LLM simulators across proprietary, open-source, and specialized families using the User-Sim Index (USI), a metric we introduce to quantify how well LLM simulators resemble real user interactive behaviors and feedback. Behaviorally, LLM simulators are excessively cooperative, stylistically uniform, and lack realistic frustration or ambiguity, creating an "easy mode" that inflates agent success rates above the human baseline. In evaluations, real humans provide nuanced judgments across eight quality dimensions while simulated users produce uniformly more positive feedback; rule-based rewards are failing to capture rich feedback signals generated by human users. Overall, higher general model capability does not necessarily yield more faithful user simulation. These findings highlight the importance of human validation when using LLM-based user simulators in the agent development cycle and motivate improved models for user simulation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

"GenAI Defaults to Bias!" Gamify AI Literacy Through Reflections on Prompts

As Generative AI (GenAI) becomes widespread, it is increasingly important for the public to understand the model's behaviors and biases. However, existing AI literacy efforts miss opportunities to engage the general public to reflect on enduring GenAI bias and behaviors (e.g., how GenAI defaults to its internal bias in response to ambiguous or challenging prompts). In this work, we introduce ImaginAItion, a multiplayer game to help adults better reflect on GenAI bias and understand GenAI behaviors. ImaginAItion is grounded in reflective play to surface GenAI limitations by encouraging players to manipulate prompt specificity (e.g., an underspecified prompt "CEO" defaults to a white man). From ten sessions (n=30), we find that the game significantly improved players' understanding of GenAI behaviors by 35% in accuracy. Qualitative analysis showed how game mechanisms supported player reflections, including on prompting strategies to mitigate GenAI bias. Our work demonstrates a viable pathway to scale GenAI literacy through playful, social interventions resilient to rapidly evolving technologies.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Reinforcing Human Behavior Simulation via Verbal Feedback

Humans learn social norms and behaviors from verbal feedback (e.g., a parent saying "that was rude" or a friend explaining "here's why that hurt"). Yet, learning from feedback for LLMs has largely focused on domains like code and math, where RL rewards are directly verifiable and condensed into scalar values. As LLMs are increasingly used to simulate human behavior, e.g., standing in for users, patients, students, and other personas, there is a pressing need to make them more human-like, which requires embracing a fundamentally different kind of signal: feedback that is verbal, subjective, and multi-faceted. We present DITTO, a model trained by treating verbal feedback as a first-class signal in reinforcement learning. After each rollout, DITTO receives verbal feedback and generates a feedback-conditioned improved rollout; both outputs are jointly optimized with GRPO, distilling verbal guidance into the base policy without requiring feedback at test time. We also introduce SOUL (Simulation gym Of hUman-Like behavior), a unified benchmark and training data suite spanning 10 tasks across six categories: Theory of Mind, character role play, social skill, learner simulation, user simulation, and persona simulation. DITTO achieves an average 36% improvement over the base model and exceeds GPT-5.4 on 6 of 10 SOUL benchmarks, demonstrating that RL with verbal feedback is a promising direction for training LLMs to simulate human behavior.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

RECAP: An End-to-End Platform for Capturing, Replaying, and Analyzing AI-Assisted Programming Interactions

Understanding how developers interact with AI coding assistants requires more than chat logs or git histories in isolation; it requires reconstructing the full context: which prompt led to which edit, what the developer tried and discarded, and how their strategy evolved over time. We present RECAP (Replay and Examine Captured AI Programming), an open-source platform that (1) passively records AI chat sessions and fine-grained code edits inside VS Code without disrupting the developer's workflow, (2) merges them into a unified timeline for interactive session replay, and (3) exposes an extensible analysis layer, with example modules for behavioral classification and AI reliance measurement. Deployed in a university software engineering course, RECAP captured 2,034 prompts and 8,239 code edits from 41 students across a multi-week project. We demonstrate how the platform's linked data and replay capabilities enable analyses of developer-AI interaction patterns that no single data source could support.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What Prompts Don't Say: Understanding and Managing Underspecification in LLM Prompts

Prompt underspecification is a common challenge when interacting with LLMs. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of this problem, showing that while LLMs can often infer unspecified requirements by default (41.1%), such behavior is fragile: Under-specified prompts are 2x as likely to regress across model or prompt changes, sometimes with accuracy drops exceeding 20%. This instability makes it difficult to reliably build LLM applications. Moreover, simply specifying all requirements does not consistently help, as models have limited instruction-following ability and requirements can conflict. Standard prompt optimizers likewise provide little benefit. To address these issues, we propose requirements-aware prompt optimization mechanisms that improve performance by 4.8% on average over baselines. We further advocate for a systematic process of proactive requirements discovery, evaluation, and monitoring to better manage prompt underspecification in practice.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Not Everyone Wins with LLMs: Behavioral Patterns and Pedagogical Implications for AI Literacy in Programmatic Data Science

LLMs promise to democratize technical work in complex domains like programmatic data analysis, but not everyone benefits equally. We study how students with varied experiences use LLMs to complete Python-based data analysis in computational notebooks in a graduate course. Drawing on homework logs, recordings, and surveys from 36 students, we ask: Which experience matters most, and how does it shape AI use? Our mixed-methods analysis shows that technical experience -- not AI familiarity or communication skills -- remains a significant predictor of success. Students also vary widely in how they leverage LLMs, struggling at stages of forming intent, expressing inputs, interpreting outputs, and assessing results. We identify success and failure behaviors, such as providing context or decomposing prompts, that distinguish effective use. These findings inform AI literacy interventions, highlighting that lightweight demonstrations improve surface fluency but are insufficient; deeper training and scaffolds are needed to cultivate resilient AI use skills.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2025

What Should We Engineer in Prompts? Training Humans in Requirement-Driven LLM Use

Prompting LLMs for complex tasks (e.g., building a trip advisor chatbot) needs humans to clearly articulate customized requirements (e.g., "start the response with a tl;dr"). However, existing prompt engineering instructions often lack focused training on requirement articulation and instead tend to emphasize increasingly automatable strategies (e.g., tricks like adding role-plays and "think step-by-step"). To address the gap, we introduce Requirement-Oriented Prompt Engineering (ROPE), a paradigm that focuses human attention on generating clear, complete requirements during prompting. We implement ROPE through an assessment and training suite that provides deliberate practice with LLM-generated feedback. In a randomized controlled experiment with 30 novices, ROPE significantly outperforms conventional prompt engineering training (20% vs. 1% gains), a gap that automatic prompt optimization cannot close. Furthermore, we demonstrate a direct correlation between the quality of input requirements and LLM outputs. Our work paves the way to empower more end-users to build complex LLM applications.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2025

SPHERE: An Evaluation Card for Human-AI Systems

In the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), establishing effective evaluation methods and standards for diverse human-AI interaction systems is increasingly challenging. To encourage more transparent documentation and facilitate discussion on human-AI system evaluation design options, we present an evaluation card SPHERE, which encompasses five key dimensions: 1) What is being evaluated?; 2) How is the evaluation conducted?; 3) Who is participating in the evaluation?; 4) When is evaluation conducted?; 5) How is evaluation validated? We conduct a review of 39 human-AI systems using SPHERE, outlining current evaluation practices and areas for improvement. We provide three recommendations for improving the validity and rigor of evaluation practices.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

How to Teach Programming in the AI Era? Using LLMs as a Teachable Agent for Debugging

Large Language Models (LLMs) now excel at generative skills and can create content at impeccable speeds. However, they are imperfect and still make various mistakes. In a Computer Science education context, as these models are widely recognized as "AI pair programmers," it becomes increasingly important to train students on evaluating and debugging the LLM-generated code. In this work, we introduce HypoCompass, a novel system to facilitate deliberate practice on debugging, where human novices play the role of Teaching Assistants and help LLM-powered teachable agents debug code. We enable effective task delegation between students and LLMs in this learning-by-teaching environment: students focus on hypothesizing the cause of code errors, while adjacent skills like code completion are offloaded to LLM-agents. Our evaluations demonstrate that HypoCompass generates high-quality training materials (e.g., bugs and fixes), outperforming human counterparts fourfold in efficiency, and significantly improves student performance on debugging by 12% in the pre-to-post test.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2024

Generating Situated Reflection Triggers about Alternative Solution Paths: A Case Study of Generative AI for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

An advantage of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their contextualization capability - providing different responses based on student inputs like solution strategy or prior discussion, to potentially better engage students than standard feedback. We present a design and evaluation of a proof-of-concept LLM application to offer students dynamic and contextualized feedback. Specifically, we augment an Online Programming Exercise bot for a college-level Cloud Computing course with ChatGPT, which offers students contextualized reflection triggers during a collaborative query optimization task in database design. We demonstrate that LLMs can be used to generate highly situated reflection triggers that incorporate details of the collaborative discussion happening in context. We discuss in depth the exploration of the design space of the triggers and their correspondence with the learning objectives as well as the impact on student learning in a pilot study with 34 students.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2023

AI-TA: Towards an Intelligent Question-Answer Teaching Assistant using Open-Source LLMs

Responding to the thousands of student questions on online QA platforms each semester has a considerable human cost, particularly in computing courses with rapidly growing enrollments. To address the challenges of scalable and intelligent question-answering (QA), we introduce an innovative solution that leverages open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) from the LLaMA-2 family to ensure data privacy. Our approach combines augmentation techniques such as retrieval augmented generation (RAG), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and learning from human preferences data using Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Through extensive experimentation on a Piazza dataset from an introductory CS course, comprising 10,000 QA pairs and 1,500 pairs of preference data, we demonstrate a significant 30% improvement in the quality of answers, with RAG being a particularly impactful addition. Our contributions include the development of a novel architecture for educational QA, extensive evaluations of LLM performance utilizing both human assessments and LLM-based metrics, and insights into the challenges and future directions of educational data processing. This work paves the way for the development of AI-TA, an intelligent QA assistant customizable for courses with an online QA platform

cs.LG↗
arXiv2023

Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Programming

The emergence of large-language models (LLMs) that excel at code generation and commercial products such as GitHub's Copilot has sparked interest in human-AI pair programming (referred to as "pAIr programming") where an AI system collaborates with a human programmer. While traditional pair programming between humans has been extensively studied, it remains uncertain whether its findings can be applied to human-AI pair programming. We compare human-human and human-AI pair programming, exploring their similarities and differences in interaction, measures, benefits, and challenges. We find that the effectiveness of both approaches is mixed in the literature (though the measures used for pAIr programming are not as comprehensive). We summarize moderating factors on the success of human-human pair programming, which provides opportunities for pAIr programming research. For example, mismatched expertise makes pair programming less productive, therefore well-designed AI programming assistants may adapt to differences in expertise levels.

cs.HC↗