Shaping Human-AI Interactions to Provide Improvement Pathways and Balance Competing Objectives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.05710v1
• Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2026 07:48:27 GMT
• Title: Shaping Human-AI Interactions to Provide Improvement Pathways and Balance Competing Objectives
• Abstract summary: The work presented in this thesis advances human-centered machine learning by providing principles and methods for designing AI systems that align with human needs, values, and capabilities.
• Score: 0.5221459608786241
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: When an AI system is deployed, the individuals who use and or are evaluated by it form beliefs about how the system operates and use those beliefs to strategically present their preferences, behaviors, or attributes. The system then responds with feedback or a decision outcome, thereby creating a human-AI interaction loop. This thesis studies how to design and shape such interactions to achieve three goals: (1) help individuals develop accurate beliefs about the AI systems so they can improve and or secure favorable outcomes at minimal cost, (2) encourage improvement and or discourage gaming behaviors, and (3) ensure that the AI system continues to achieve its intended objectives, such as maximizing accuracy. To address these goals, the thesis is organized into three complementary parts that examine and study human-AI interactions from the perspectives of both evaluated individuals and AI systems. Together, the work presented in this thesis advances human-centered machine learning by providing principles and methods for designing AI systems that align with human needs, values, and capabilities. Methodologically, this thesis integrates theoretical analysis, data-driven modeling, human-subject experiments, and empirical evaluations on real-world and semi-synthetic datasets.

Related papers

• AIssistant: An Agentic Approach for Human--AI Collaborative Scientific Work on Reviews and Perspectives in Machine Learning [2.464267718050055]
  We present here the first experiments with AIssistant for perspective and review research papers in machine learning.<n>Our system integrates modular tools and agents for literature, section-wise experimentation, citation management, and automatic paper text generation.<n>Despite its effectiveness, we identify key limitations, including hallucinated citations, difficulty adapting to dynamic paper structures, and incomplete integration of multimodal content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T15:50:31Z)
• Towards Experience-Centered AI: A Framework for Integrating Lived Experience in Design and Development [12.049173336886817]
  Lived experiences shape how individuals interact with AI systems.<n>Prior research has focused on developing techniques to emulate human preferences.<n>This work proposes a framework for meaningfully integrating lived experience into the design and evaluation of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T06:12:40Z)
• Evaluating AI Alignment in Eleven LLMs through Output-Based Analysis and Human Benchmarking [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in psychological research and practice, yet traditional benchmarks reveal little about the values they express in real interaction.<n>We introduce PAPERS, output-based evaluation of the values LLMs express.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T20:14:02Z)
• When Models Know More Than They Can Explain: Quantifying Knowledge Transfer in Human-AI Collaboration [79.69935257008467]
  We introduce Knowledge Integration and Transfer Evaluation (KITE), a conceptual and experimental framework for Human-AI knowledge transfer capabilities.<n>We conduct the first large-scale human study (N=118) explicitly designed to measure it.<n>In our two-phase setup, humans first ideate with an AI on problem-solving strategies, then independently implement solutions, isolating model explanations' influence on human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T20:48:16Z)
• AI Automatons: AI Systems Intended to Imitate Humans [54.19152688545896]
  There is a growing proliferation of AI systems designed to mimic people's behavior, work, abilities, likenesses, or humanness.<n>The research, design, deployment, and availability of such AI systems have prompted growing concerns about a wide range of possible legal, ethical, and other social impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T03:55:38Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  AI technology can support humans in scientific discovery and forming decisions, but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals.<n>The responsible use of AI and its participation in human-AI teams increasingly shows the need for AI alignment.<n>A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration: A Review and Methodological Framework [4.41358655687435]
  The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in working environments with individuals, known as Human-AI Collaboration (HAIC), has become essential.<n> evaluating HAIC's effectiveness remains challenging due to the complex interaction of components involved.<n>This paper provides a detailed analysis of existing HAIC evaluation approaches and develops a fresh paradigm for more effectively evaluating these systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T12:52:22Z)
• Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment [109.57781720848669]
  We argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI.<n>We introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Towards interactive evaluations for interaction harms in human-AI systems [8.989911701384788]
  We propose a shift towards evaluation based on textitinteractional ethics, which focuses on textitinteraction harms<n>First, we discuss the limitations of current evaluation methods, which (1) are static, (2) assume a universal user experience, and (3) have limited construct validity.<n>We present practical principles for designing interactive evaluations. These include ecologically valid interaction scenarios, human impact metrics, and diverse human participation approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T08:49:34Z)
• Human-AI Coevolution [48.74579595505374]
  Coevolution AI is a process in which humans and AI algorithms continuously influence each other. This paper introduces Coevolution AI as the cornerstone for a new field of study at the intersection between AI and complexity science.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T18:10:54Z)
• Learning to Complement Humans [67.38348247794949]
  A rising vision for AI in the open world centers on the development of systems that can complement humans for perceptual, diagnostic, and reasoning tasks. We demonstrate how an end-to-end learning strategy can be harnessed to optimize the combined performance of human-machine teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T20:00:23Z)
• How to Answer Why -- Evaluating the Explanations of AI Through Mental Model Analysis [0.0]
  Key question for human-centered AI research is how to validly survey users' mental models. We evaluate whether mental models are suitable as an empirical research method. We propose an exemplary method to evaluate explainable AI approaches in a human-centered way.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-11T17:15:58Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.