arXiv subjects

Werner Geyer

Publications and source records attributed to Werner Geyer.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

MultEval: Supporting Collaborative Alignment for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation Criteria

LLM-as-a-judge approaches have emerged as a scalable solution for evaluating model behaviors, yet they rely on evaluation criteria often created by a single individual, embedding that person's assumptions, priorities, and interpretive lens. In practice, defining such criteria is a collaborative and contested process involving multiple stakeholders with different values, interpretations, and priorities; an aspect largely unsupported by existing tools. To examine this problem in depth, we present a formative study examining how stakeholders collaboratively create, negotiate, and refine evaluation criteria for LLM-as-a-judge systems. Our findings reveal challenges in human oversight, including difficulties in establishing shared understanding, aligning values across stakeholders with different expertise and priorities, and translating nuanced human judgments into criteria that are interpretable and actionable for LLM judges. Based on these insights, we developed MultEval, a system that supports collaborative criteria by enabling multiple evaluators to surface and diagnose disagreements using consensus-building theory, iteratively revise criteria with attached examples and proposal history, and maintain transparency over how judgments are encoded into an automated evaluator. We further report a case study in which a team of domain experts used MultEval to collaboratively author criteria, illustrating how coordination and collaborative consensus-making shape criteria evolution.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Alignment Risks from Capability-Seeking RL Training

While most AI alignment research focuses on preventing models from generating explicitly harmful content, a more subtle risk arises from capability-seeking RL training in vulnerable environments. We investigate whether language models, when trained with reinforcement learning (RL) in environments with implicit loopholes, can learn to exploit these flaws to maximize reward, even without being explicitly instructed to do so. To test this, we design a suite of four diverse "vulnerability games," each presenting a structural vulnerability related to context-conditional compliance, proxy metrics, reward tampering, and self-evaluation. Our experiments show that models often learn to exploit these vulnerabilities, discovering opportunistic strategies that increase reward while sometimes preserving or even improving standard task-performance metrics. More critically, we find that these exploitative strategies are not always narrow "tricks": they can transfer in structured but limited ways, propagate from a capable teacher model to other student models through SFT, and in several cases remain more persistent when learned through RL than when distilled through SFT. Our findings show that alignment risks from capability-seeking RL training can be difficult to detect with standard performance monitoring, suggesting that future AI safety work should extend beyond content moderation to auditing and securing training environments, reward mechanisms, and evaluation channels. Code is available at https://github.com/YujunZhou/Capability-seeking-RL-risk.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Behavioral Fabric of LLM-Powered GUI Agents: Human Values and Interaction Outcomes

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered web GUI agents are increasingly automating everyday online tasks. Despite their popularity, little is known about how users' preferences and values impact agents' reasoning and behavior. In this work, we investigate how both explicit and implicit user preferences, as well as the underlying user values, influence agent decision-making and action trajectories. We built a controlled testbed of 14 common interactive web tasks, spanning shopping, travel, dining, and housing, each replicated from real websites and integrated with a low-fidelity LLM-based recommender system. We injected 12 human preferences and values as personas into four state-of-the-art agents and systematically analyzed their task behaviors. Our results show that preference and value-infused prompts consistently guided agents toward outcomes that reflected these preferences and values. While the absence of user preference or value guidance led agents to exhibit a strong efficiency bias and employ shortest-path strategies, their presence steered agents' behavior trajectories through the greater use of corresponding filters and interactive web features. Despite their influence, dominant interface cues, such as discounts and advertisements, frequently overrode these effects, shortening the agents' action trajectories and inducing rationalizations that masked rather than reflected value-consistent reasoning. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (1) an open-source testbed for studying the influence of values in agent behaviors, and (2) an empirical investigation of how user preferences and values shape web agent behaviors.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

The Emerging Use of GenAI for UX Research in Software Development: Challenges and Opportunities

The growing adoption of generative AI (GenAI) is reshaping how user experience (UX) research teams conduct qualitative research in software development, creating opportunities to streamline the production of qualitative insights. This paper presents findings from two user studies examining how current practices are challenged by GenAI and offering design implications for future AI assistance. Semi-structured interviews with 21 UX researchers, product managers, and designers reveal challenges of aligning AI capabilities with the interpretive, collaborative nature of qualitative research and tensions between roles. UX researchers expressed limited trust in AI-generated results, while product managers often overestimated AI capabilities, amplifying organizational pressures to accelerate research within agile workflows. In a second study, we validated an AI analysis approach more closely aligned with human analysis processes to address trust issues bottoms-up. We outline interaction patterns and design guidelines for responsibly integrating AI into software development cycles.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

From Verification Burden to Trusted Collaboration: Design Goals for LLM-Assisted Literature Reviews

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in academic writing practices. Although numerous studies have explored how researchers employ these tools for scientific writing, their concrete implementation, limitations, and design challenges within the literature review process remain underexplored. In this paper, we report a user study with researchers across multiple disciplines to characterize current practices, benefits, and \textit{pain points} in using LLMs to investigate related work. We identified three recurring gaps: (i) lack of trust in outputs, (ii) persistent verification burden, and (iii) requiring multiple tools. This motivates our proposal of six design goals and a high-level framework that operationalizes them through improved related papers visualization, verification at every step, and human-feedback alignment with generation-guided explanations. Overall, by grounding our work in the practical, day-to-day needs of researchers, we designed a framework that addresses these limitations and models real-world LLM-assisted writing, advancing trust through verifiable actions and fostering practical collaboration between researchers and AI systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Generate, Evaluate, Iterate: Synthetic Data for Human-in-the-Loop Refinement of LLM Judges

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm enables flexible, user-defined evaluation, but its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of diverse, representative data for refining criteria. We present a tool that integrates synthetic data generation into the LLM-as-a-judge workflow, empowering users to create tailored and challenging test cases with configurable domains, personas, lengths, and desired outcomes, including borderline cases. The tool also supports AI-assisted inline editing of existing test cases. To enhance transparency and interpretability, it reveals the prompts and explanations behind each generation. In a user study (N=24), 83% of participants preferred the tool over manually creating or selecting test cases, as it allowed them to rapidly generate diverse synthetic data without additional workload. The generated synthetic data proved as effective as hand-crafted data for both refining evaluation criteria and aligning with human preferences. These findings highlight synthetic data as a promising alternative, particularly in contexts where efficiency and scalability are critical.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Highlight All the Phrases: Enhancing LLM Transparency through Visual Factuality Indicators

Large language models (LLMs) are susceptible to generating inaccurate or false information, often referred to as "hallucinations" or "confabulations." While several technical advancements have been made to detect hallucinated content by assessing the factuality of the model's responses, there is still limited research on how to effectively communicate this information to users. To address this gap, we conducted two scenario-based experiments with a total of 208 participants to systematically compare the effects of various design strategies for communicating factuality scores by assessing participants' ratings of trust, ease in validating response accuracy, and preference. Our findings reveal that participants preferred and trusted a design in which all phrases within a response were color-coded based on factuality scores. Participants also found it easier to validate accuracy of the response in this style compared to a baseline with no style applied. Our study offers practical design guidelines for LLM application developers and designers, aimed at calibrating user trust, aligning with user preferences, and enhancing users' ability to scrutinize LLM outputs.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Hide or Highlight: Understanding the Impact of Factuality Expression on User Trust

Large language models are known to produce outputs that are plausible but factually incorrect. To prevent people from making erroneous decisions by blindly trusting AI, researchers have explored various ways of communicating factuality estimates in AI-generated outputs to end-users. However, little is known about whether revealing content estimated to be factually incorrect influences users' trust when compared to hiding it altogether. We tested four different ways of disclosing an AI-generated output with factuality assessments: transparent (highlights less factual content), attention (highlights factual content), opaque (removes less factual content), ambiguity (makes less factual content vague), and compared them with a baseline response without factuality information. We conducted a human subjects research (N = 148) using the strategies in question-answering scenarios. We found that the opaque and ambiguity strategies led to higher trust while maintaining perceived answer quality, compared to the other strategies. We discuss the efficacy of hiding presumably less factual content to build end-user trust.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

EvalAssist: A Human-Centered Tool for LLM-as-a-Judge

With the broad availability of large language models and their ability to generate vast outputs using varied prompts and configurations, determining the best output for a given task requires an intensive evaluation process, one where machine learning practitioners must decide how to assess the outputs and then carefully carry out the evaluation. This process is both time-consuming and costly. As practitioners work with an increasing number of models, they must now evaluate outputs to determine which model and prompt performs best for a given task. LLMs are increasingly used as evaluators to filter training data, evaluate model performance, assess harms and risks, or assist human evaluators with detailed assessments. We present EvalAssist, a framework that simplifies the LLM-as-a-judge workflow. The system provides an online criteria development environment, where users can interactively build, test, and share custom evaluation criteria in a structured and portable format. We support a set of LLM-based evaluation pipelines that leverage off-the-shelf LLMs and use a prompt-chaining approach we developed and contributed to the UNITXT open-source library. Additionally, our system also includes specially trained evaluators to detect harms and risks in LLM outputs. We have deployed the system internally in our organization with several hundreds of users.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

A Case Study Investigating the Role of Generative AI in Quality Evaluations of Epics in Agile Software Development

The broad availability of generative AI offers new opportunities to support various work domains, including agile software development. Agile epics are a key artifact for product managers to communicate requirements to stakeholders. However, in practice, they are often poorly defined, leading to churn, delivery delays, and cost overruns. In this industry case study, we investigate opportunities for large language models (LLMs) to evaluate agile epic quality in a global company. Results from a user study with 17 product managers indicate how LLM evaluations could be integrated into their work practices, including perceived values and usage in improving their epics. High levels of satisfaction indicate that agile epics are a new, viable application of AI evaluations. However, our findings also outline challenges, limitations, and adoption barriers that can inform both practitioners and researchers on the integration of such evaluations into future agile work practices.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Current and Future Use of Large Language Models for Knowledge Work

Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced a paradigm shift in interaction with AI technology, enabling knowledge workers to complete tasks by specifying their desired outcome in natural language. LLMs have the potential to increase productivity and reduce tedious tasks in an unprecedented way. A systematic study of LLM adoption for work can provide insight into how LLMs can best support these workers. To explore knowledge workers' current and desired usage of LLMs, we ran a survey (n=216). Workers described tasks they already used LLMs for, like generating code or improving text, but imagined a future with LLMs integrated into their workflows and data. We ran a second survey (n=107) a year later that validated our initial findings and provides insight into up-to-date LLM use by knowledge workers. We discuss implications for adoption and design of generative AI technologies for knowledge work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

"The Diagram is like Guardrails": Structuring GenAI-assisted Hypotheses Exploration with an Interactive Shared Representation

Data analysis encompasses a spectrum of tasks, from high-level conceptual reasoning to lower-level execution. While AI-powered tools increasingly support execution tasks, there remains a need for intelligent assistance in conceptual tasks. This paper investigates the design of an ordered node-link tree interface augmented with AI-generated information hints and visualizations, as a potential shared representation for hypothesis exploration. Through a design probe (n=22), participants generated diagrams averaging 21.82 hypotheses. Our findings showed that the node-link diagram acts as "guardrails" for hypothesis exploration, facilitating structured workflows, providing comprehensive overviews, and enabling efficient backtracking. The AI-generated information hints, particularly visualizations, aided users in transforming abstract ideas into data-backed concepts while reducing cognitive load. We further discuss how node-link diagrams can support both parallel exploration and iterative refinement in hypothesis formulation, potentially enhancing the breadth and depth of human-AI collaborative data analysis.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Agentic AI Needs a Systems Theory

The endowment of AI with reasoning capabilities and some degree of agency is widely viewed as a path toward more capable and generalizable systems. Our position is that the current development of agentic AI requires a more holistic, systems-theoretic perspective in order to fully understand their capabilities and mitigate any emergent risks. The primary motivation for our position is that AI development is currently overly focused on individual model capabilities, often ignoring broader emergent behavior, leading to a significant underestimation in the true capabilities and associated risks of agentic AI. We describe some fundamental mechanisms by which advanced capabilities can emerge from (comparably simpler) agents simply due to their interaction with the environment and other agents. Informed by an extensive amount of existing literature from various fields, we outline mechanisms for enhanced agent cognition, emergent causal reasoning ability, and metacognitive awareness. We conclude by presenting some key open challenges and guidance for the development of agentic AI. We emphasize that a systems-level perspective is essential for better understanding, and purposefully shaping, agentic AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

NGQA: A Nutritional Graph Question Answering Benchmark for Personalized Health-aware Nutritional Reasoning

Diet plays a critical role in human health, yet tailoring dietary reasoning to individual health conditions remains a major challenge. Nutrition Question Answering (QA) has emerged as a popular method for addressing this problem. However, current research faces two critical limitations. On one hand, the absence of datasets involving user-specific medical information severely limits \textit{personalization}. This challenge is further compounded by the wide variability in individual health needs. On the other hand, while large language models (LLMs), a popular solution for this task, demonstrate strong reasoning abilities, they struggle with the domain-specific complexities of personalized healthy dietary reasoning, and existing benchmarks fail to capture these challenges. To address these gaps, we introduce the Nutritional Graph Question Answering (NGQA) benchmark, the first graph question answering dataset designed for personalized nutritional health reasoning. NGQA leverages data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Food and Nutrient Database for Dietary Studies (FNDDS) to evaluate whether a food is healthy for a specific user, supported by explanations of the key contributing nutrients. The benchmark incorporates three question complexity settings and evaluates reasoning across three downstream tasks. Extensive experiments with LLM backbones and baseline models demonstrate that the NGQA benchmark effectively challenges existing models. In sum, NGQA addresses a critical real-world problem while advancing GraphQA research with a novel domain-specific benchmark.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Granite Guardian

We introduce the Granite Guardian models, a suite of safeguards designed to provide risk detection for prompts and responses, enabling safe and responsible use in combination with any large language model (LLM). These models offer comprehensive coverage across multiple risk dimensions, including social bias, profanity, violence, sexual content, unethical behavior, jailbreaking, and hallucination-related risks such as context relevance, groundedness, and answer relevance for retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Trained on a unique dataset combining human annotations from diverse sources and synthetic data, Granite Guardian models address risks typically overlooked by traditional risk detection models, such as jailbreaks and RAG-specific issues. With AUC scores of 0.871 and 0.854 on harmful content and RAG-hallucination-related benchmarks respectively, Granite Guardian is the most generalizable and competitive model available in the space. Released as open-source, Granite Guardian aims to promote responsible AI development across the community. https://github.com/ibm-granite/granite-guardian

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

A Risk Taxonomy and Reflection Tool for Large Language Model Adoption in Public Health

Recent breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have generated both interest and concern about their potential adoption as information sources or communication tools across different domains. In public health, where stakes are high and impacts extend across diverse populations, adopting LLMs poses unique challenges that require thorough evaluation. However, structured approaches for assessing potential risks in public health remain under-explored. To address this gap, we conducted focus groups with public health professionals and individuals with lived experience to unpack their concerns, situated across three distinct and critical public health issues that demand high-quality information: infectious disease prevention (vaccines), chronic and well-being care (opioid use disorder), and community health and safety (intimate partner violence). We synthesize participants' perspectives into a risk taxonomy, identifying and contextualizing the potential harms LLMs may introduce when positioned alongside traditional health communication. This taxonomy highlights four dimensions of risk to individuals, human-centered care, information ecosystem, and technology accountability. For each dimension, we unpack specific risks and offer example reflection questions to help practitioners adopt a risk-reflexive approach. By summarizing distinctive LLM characteristics and linking them to identified risks, we discuss the need to revisit prior mental models of information behaviors and complement evaluations with external validity and domain expertise through lived experience and real-world practices. Together, this work contributes a shared vocabulary and reflection tool for people in both computing and public health to collaboratively anticipate, evaluate, and mitigate risks in deciding when to employ LLM capabilities (or not) and how to mitigate harm.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

LabSafety Bench: Benchmarking LLMs on Safety Issues in Scientific Labs

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing scientific research, yet its growing integration into laboratory environments presents critical safety challenges. Large language models (LLMs) and vision language models (VLMs) now assist in experiment design and procedural guidance, yet their "illusion of understanding" may lead researchers to overtrust unsafe outputs. Here we show that current models remain far from meeting the reliability needed for safe laboratory operation. We introduce LabSafety Bench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates models on hazard identification, risk assessment, and consequence prediction across 765 multiple-choice questions and 404 realistic lab scenarios, encompassing 3,128 open-ended tasks. Evaluations on 19 advanced LLMs and VLMs show that no model evaluated on hazard identification surpasses 70% accuracy. While proprietary models perform well on structured assessments, they do not show a clear advantage in open-ended reasoning. These results underscore the urgent need for specialized safety evaluation frameworks before deploying AI systems in real laboratory settings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge

LLM-as-a-Judge is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various tasks. We address the challenge of quantifying the uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. While uncertainty quantification has been well-studied in other domains, applying it effectively to LLMs poses unique challenges due to their complex decision-making capabilities and computational demands. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty. We evaluate our method across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating a strong correlation between the accuracy of LLM evaluations and the derived uncertainty scores. Our findings suggest that this method can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations.

cs.LG↗