https://arxiv.org/api/9ckWoFtft4Cq2kE/0sp2+a39b/c 2026-06-14T12:08:57Z 30934 360 15 http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29027v1 2026-05-27T19:23:46Z

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is proliferating, yet their performance is observed to vary based on prompting styles and tones. In this study, we investigate both whether and how tonal variations in prompts lead to disparate LLM accuracy for objective multiple-choice questions. We use two datasets: a 50-base question dataset with five tone variants and a 570-base question MMLU subset spanning 57 subjects with seven tone variants. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of four cost-efficient, popular LLMs: ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5-nano, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. Across models, tonal effects are systematic but highly model-dependent. Some models show small, yet statistically significant, shifts, while others exhibit large accuracy swings across tones. Further, we identify subject-level differences in tone sensitivity and present a routing framework to explain how tones may attune internal reasoning modes. Our findings caution users against assuming tone-robust reliability in LLM deployments.

2026-05-27T19:23:46Z 10 pages, 6 tables, 1 figure. Accepted as a full paper at the Thirty-second Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2026), Reno. Follow-up to arXiv:2510.04950 Om Dobariya Akhil Kumar http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.29025v1 2026-05-27T19:21:42Z

Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.

2026-05-27T19:21:42Z Aisha Najera Alvin Moon Vedant Srinivasan Rajesh Veeraraghavan http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28969v1 2026-05-27T18:18:54Z

If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.

2026-05-27T18:18:54Z 134 pages, 4 figures. Code, data, judge prompts, and reproduction instructions: github.com/agulaya24/beyond-recall Aarik Gulaya http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28966v1 2026-05-27T18:09:26Z

Large language model (LLM) leaderboards rank AI models using standardized benchmarks and have become highly visible across computer science, despite known limitations in their reliability and robustness. Yet how they shape researchers' actual practice remains empirically uncharted. We address this gap through semi-structured interviews with eight researchers across four computer science subfields, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. We find a near-universal paradox of pragmatic skepticism: while participants expressed deep distrust of leaderboard rankings, they continued to use them as rough decision-making aids. Peer networks, not leaderboards, emerged as the primary model selection mechanism, and arena-based (human-voting) leaderboards were consistently preferred over static benchmark leaderboards. Leaderboard influence varied sharply across subfields, revealing that disciplinary culture, not individual attitudes, mediates engagement; for instance, NLP researchers faced state-of-the-art comparison pressure while HCI and Systems/Privacy researchers reported none. Across these differences, however, participants converged on cost transparency as the most demanded missing feature (seven of eight). We translate these findings into concrete design recommendations that align evaluation infrastructure with how researchers actually use it, such as task-specific score breakdowns, cost integration, and voter-demographic disclosure.

2026-05-27T18:09:26Z Pouya Sadeghi Anamaria Crisan Jimmy Lin http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28792v1 2026-05-27T17:50:36Z

Electroencephalography (EEG) is a critical, non-invasive method to monitor electrical brain activity. EEGs can span anywhere from a couple seconds to multiple hours, posing a major hurdle for existing deep learning methods due to two major factors: (1) existing EEG models are predominantly built upon the attention mechanism, incurring quadratic scaling as the sequence length increases, and (2) raw EEG signals must be processed in a sliding-window fashion due to fixed-length input requirements, preventing global understanding of the entire signal. To this extent, we propose CaMBRAIN - the first Causal, Mamba-based state space model (SSM) capable of real-time inference of EEG signals, arguing that bidirectional approaches are needlessly expensive given the causal, unidirectional nature of EEG. However, training such a model is non-trivial, as crucial EEG events can be extremely brief - within fractions of a second - yet separated by long intervals spanning minutes. Current EEG methods use self-supervised objectives that optimize for signal reconstruction, but these are not well suited for streaming SSMs; they fail to explicitly train the hidden state to retain the salient long-range context needed for streaming inference. We therefore introduce a multi-stage self-supervised training pipeline specifically tailored to encourage long-range memory retention and strong performance on EEG signals, while preserving the linear-time complexity of state space models. CaMBRAIN achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) results across 3 different EEG datasets with >10x higher throughput than existing models, enabling the first model capable of long-range, continuous inference of variable-length EEG signals.

2026-05-27T17:50:36Z 22 pages, 3 figures, 8 tables Abhilash Durgam Nyle Siddiqui Jeffrey A. Chan-Santiago Qiushi Fu Elakkat D. Gireesh Mubarak Shah http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28908v1 2026-05-27T17:07:02Z

Conversational agents are increasingly integrated into the most private and intimate aspects of users' lives, from discussions of mental health to financial decisions. As a result, these systems have access to reams of sensitive user data. Much of the literature on AI systems has focused on aligning users' goals with the agents that act on their behalf. While this work is vitally important, it may overlook the need to establish a new normative baseline. Conversational AI agents, designed to feel and interact anthropomorphically with human users, must be held to a standard of care commensurate with their capabilities and access. When a client hires a personal lawyer, undergoes surgery, or receives advice from an investment manager, the expert they consult often has a fiduciary duty to act in their client's best interests. This provocation argues that conversational agents should be held to a similar standard and introduces fiduciary design as a guiding principle. In this respect, conversational AI trust and accountability could be unified into a single design and legal paradigm.

2026-05-27T17:07:02Z To appear in the proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Conversational User Interfaces (CUI '26) Jacob Erickson 10.1145/3816046.3816299 http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28680v1 2026-05-27T16:13:41Z

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in workplaces is transforming how we work. While existing research on human-AI collaboration at work often prioritizes performance, less is known about their experiential outcomes. Through interviews with 24 employees across Information Technology (IT), service-based, and healthcare sectors, this paper examines AI's impact on job satisfaction via perceptions of job decency and meaningfulness, now and in the future. Our results reveal that the anticipated impact of AI on overall job satisfaction varies with the occupational domain, with differing perceptions of its underlying decency and meaningfulness. For instance, IT and healthcare anticipate increased satisfaction with decency aspects like working hours but decreased satisfaction with meaningfulness aspects like social image due to misconceptions about AI handling most of their tasks. Conversely, service workers foresee no improvement in their working hours but a higher social standing due to the perceived status boost associated with working with AI.

2026-05-27T16:13:41Z Accepted to CSCW 2026 / Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (PACMHCI) Kuntal Ghosh Marc Hassenzahl Shadan Sadeghian 10.1145/3816896 http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28571v1 2026-05-27T14:56:23Z

Despite warnings that LLMs can make mistakes, users often develop inappropriate trust and accept incorrect answers without critical evaluation. Uncertainty quantification (UQ), displaying LLMs' confidence, has emerged as a promising approach to calibrate user trust. However, prior empirical studies on uncertainty communication have treated uncertainty as a single numerical score or simple natural language expression. This simplification fails to capture a key property of LLM outputs: a single response often comprises multiple claims and reasoning steps, each with distinct levels of uncertainty. To address this gap, this study investigates uncertainty granularity (i.e., the extent to which uncertainty is expressed at different levels within an LLM response) and examines its impact on LLM-assisted decision-making. We conducted a large-scale, between-subjects study (N=192) in which participants answered medical questions using LLMs that displayed uncertainty at three different granularities: output-level (entire response), relation-level (individual reasoning steps), and token-level (specific words). Our findings reveal distinct behavioral effects as a function of uncertainty granularity. Token-level uncertainty increased users' agreement with the AI, whereas output- and relation-level uncertainty did not increase agreement but instead reduced users' confidence in their own answers. Notably, relation-level uncertainty also reduced external verification (i.e., internet searches, checking provided URLs), steering users away from independent fact-checking and toward reliance on the LLM and its accompanying uncertainty cues. Our findings demonstrate that uncertainty granularity significantly shapes how users interact with and verify LLM outputs, providing concrete design guidance for building responsible LLM applications that encourage appropriate skepticism and verification behaviors.

2026-05-27T14:56:23Z 54 pages, 36 figures, accepted by ACM FAccT 2026 Mauricio Villavicencio Sitong Pan Qianwen Wang 10.1145/3805689.381232 http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28498v1 2026-05-27T14:00:45Z

Conversational artificial intelligence (AI) provides an efficient and convenient gateway to information access. However, it can cause overreliance when users blindly trust AI and accept its answers without fact-checking. Information search increasingly follows a hybrid interaction paradigm that combines conversational AI with web search, making fact-checking easier. In this paper, we examine whether this interaction paradigm is effective in curbing reliance. We further investigate the underlying factors (e.g., digital literacy and conversation warmth) that drive users to verify AI answers. We conduct a mixed-subjects question-answering experiment where participants interact with either a warm or a neutral chatbot. Our findings reveal that reliance persists despite users having access to both conversational and web search. The decision to verify is driven primarily by existing user perceptions (e.g., prior trust in chatbots) rather than answer properties, with some users fact-checking regardless of the context and others trusting chatbots by default. Warm conversational style has an indirect yet critical influence on reliance by increasing agreement with the chatbot when it is incorrect. Consulting additional AI sources predicts higher accuracy, while traditional web search does not. Our study extends overreliance research by: (a) demonstrating its persistence despite access to fact-checking, (b) identifying verification behavior as user-dependent, and (c) revealing conversational warmth's indirect effect on overreliance with implications for designing trustworthy conversational search systems.

2026-05-27T14:00:45Z Under review for Computers in Human Behavior Mert Yazan Frederik Bungaran Ishak Situmeang Suzan Verberne http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24413v3 2026-05-27T10:45:17Z

Deliberative democracy arguably leads to better collective decisions, but is fundamentally constrained by human attention and bandwidth. While recent AI-mediated deliberations scale participation by synthesizing inputs from many humans, they remain time-intensive for individual users. As AI models become increasingly capable, AI systems are being deployed not only to mediate deliberation between humans, but to represent humans in it: where AI agents deliberate on behalf of human users. We call this paradigm AI-delegated deliberation. While it promises unprecedented scale for democratic participation, it introduces qualitatively new design and alignment challenges that are poorly understood and under-theorized. To study these dynamics empirically, we deploy Habermolt, a public platform for AI-delegated deliberation. We evaluate its effectiveness along three dimensions that we use to organize any deliberative system: representation, aggregation, and revision. We use these observations to illuminate the design decisions future AI-delegated deliberation platforms must confront, contributing to the broader research agenda for scalable yet trustworthy AI representatives.

2026-05-23T05:50:50Z Joseph Low Oscar Duys Claude Formanek Michiel Bakker Lewis Hammond http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28258v1 2026-05-27T10:08:48Z

Generating a game is not the same as making one that can be played. Despite advances in code generation, existing approaches treat game generation as one-shot translation from prompt to artifact, leaving interaction-level failures undetected. We argue that evaluating and improving game generation requires a player, and study two roles for graphical user interface (GUI) agents in this process: (1) as an objective evaluator, for which we introduce PlaytestArena, a new evaluation environment that pairs 200 browser-based game generation tasks across eight genres with rubrics of expected in-play behaviors, adjudicated by a GUI agent that loads each build in a browser and plays it; and (2) as a subjective playtester, for which we propose Play2Code, where a game agent and a GUI agent operate in a sustained loop with shared memory, turning game generation into a dialogue between coding and playing. Our experiments show that even frontier models struggle to generate playable games directly, while Play2Code achieves a 66.8\% rubric pass-rate, improving over single-pass and agentic-coding baselines by 37.1 and 14.6 points respectively. Further analysis shows that GUI playtester feedback is more traceable than a human report, yet idiosyncratic in ways reminiscent of human testers, establishing game playtesting as a critical testbed for interactive code generation. Our project website is available at https://continual-game-generation.vercel.app/.

2026-05-27T10:08:48Z Yixu Huang Bo Li Na Li Zhe Wang Kaijie Chen Haonan Ge Qingyi Si Yuanzhe Shen Ruihan Yang Guangjing Wang Hongcheng Guo http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28255v1 2026-05-27T10:05:16Z

AI systems are fallible, and humans can make mistakes in deciding whether to trust AI over their own judgment. Thus, improving human-AI collaboration requires understanding when, why, and how humans decide to rely on AI. We study two distinct reliance decisions: the delegation choice -- deciding when to let AI act autonomously without knowing its output, and the adoption choice -- evaluating AI suggestions and deciding how to use them. Both of these decoupled reliance patterns shape collaboration, but prior work rarely studies them together in realistic settings with the same users. We address this gap by studying collaborative human--AI teams competing in a question-answering game in which humans can choose when and how to work with AI agents to win. Our 24 matches pair 23 expert humans with 16 AI agents, capturing 387 delegation and 1440 adoption decisions. While human--AI collaboration performs better than either AI or humans alone, humans make suboptimal collaboration decisions, both under-relying on correct AI suggestions (3.9% of opportunities missed) and over-relying when AI misleads them (1.7%). Both parties contribute wrong answers: reported model confidence is near chance when humans and AI disagree, while confirmation bias drives higher under-reliance (64.5%) when an AI suggestion agrees with humans' initial incorrect answer. To close this gap, we recommend calibrated confidence, evidence-grounded explanations, and mechanisms that help users refine trust.

2026-05-27T10:05:16Z Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2026 Maharshi Gor Yoo Yeon Sung Yu Hou Eve Fleisig Irene Ying Tianyi Zhou Jordan Boyd-Graber http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28253v1 2026-05-27T10:04:37Z

The preservation of under-resourced languages requires digital tools and resources shaped by and for their speakers. We present the first dedicated ASR resources for Puno Quechua (ISO 639-3: qxp): (1) the largest speech corpus for any single Quechua variety, consisting in 66 hours of recordings for scripted and spontaneous speech (including 36 hours of manually transcribed and validated data), collected via a participatory design campaign; (2) the first systematic ASR benchmark for Puno Quechua, evaluating state-of-the-art models and fine-tuning Whisper-base, wav2vec2-base, and XLS-R-300M, with and without continued pre-training (CPT); (3) an open release of all datasets and fine-tuned models.

2026-05-27T10:04:37Z Sixth Workshop on NLP for Indigenous Languages of the Americas (AmericasNLP 2026), co-located with ACL 2026 Elwin Huaman Adrian Gamarra Lafuente Johanna Cordova Anna Korhonen http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28223v1 2026-05-27T09:38:47Z

Consumer EEG headbands, HRV biofeedback devices, and closed-loop neurostimulation systems share a fundamental design flaw: they reward measurable proxy signals rather than the outcomes they claim to produce. When a user optimises for calm EEG, HRV coherence, or breathing resonance, their brain learns to produce those signals through whatever strategy is most efficient, including strategies unrelated to the intended benefit. We formalise this as reward misspecification: the policy maximising proxy reward R_proxy is not the policy maximising true intended outcome V_target. This produces three failure modes: proxy mismatch, strategy shortcutting, and transfer failure. We review how existing devices including Muse, HeartMath, Unyte IOM2, and clinical neurofeedback systems instantiate these failures. We introduce a four-tier measurability taxonomy distinguishing reliably measurable wearable targets (Tier 1) from targets that are currently or possibly structurally unmeasurable (Tiers 3 and 4), and show that most devices make implicit Tier 3 and 4 claims. We propose a design framework that avoids all three failure modes: single Tier-1 target (mind-wandering onset via EEG), negative-only cueing, temporal separation of fast EEG and slow somatic feature streams, and transfer to unassisted practice as the only success criterion. No current product meets all four criteria. The framework has direct implications for the design, evaluation, and regulation of cognitive and contemplative wearables.

2026-05-27T09:38:47Z 16 pages, 1 figure Joy Bose http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28219v1 2026-05-27T09:35:32Z

Unsupervised learning methods -- topic modeling, partition-based and density-based clustering -- produce data groupings without human guidance, yet choosing and evaluating those groupings should not itself be unsupervised. We present \emph{SmartIterator}~(SI), a visual analytics approach that treats the full sequence of grouping results across a parameter sweep as a first-class analytical object. For each method family, SI provides a structured six-phase workflow that guides the analyst through systematic exploration of grouping results -- from quality-metric overview through transition-stability assessment, membership-confidence evaluation, content and context inspection, and recurrent-archetype verification to an informed decision -- building cumulative understanding of data structure along the way. The workflows are operationalized through \emph{IteraScope}~(IS), a coordinated visual display combining quality-metric charts with semantic color encoding, a 1D group embedding with Sankey-style transition flows and violin plots of membership confidence, a 2D group embedding with HDBSCAN-detected recurrent archetypes that highlights iterations capturing all persistent patterns, and domain-specific linked views for contextualized interpretation. We demonstrate the three workflows on: (1)~simulated social-media messages from the VAST Challenge 2011 (density-based clustering, validated against ground truth), (2)~EU population statistics across ${\sim}1\,500$ NUTS-3 regions (partition-based clustering), and (3)~30 years of IEEE VIS papers (NMF topic modeling). The workflows constitute the main contribution: they provide actionable, method-specific guidance for navigating parameter spaces, studying how data structure evolves across configurations, and grounding analytical understanding in domain context -- yielding knowledge about the data that no single ``best'' result can provide.

2026-05-27T09:35:32Z Gennady Andrienko Natalia Andrienko