product managers

Abstract: Narrative-driven recommendation allows users to express multifaceted needs through free-form text where stated preferences naturally qualify and condition one another. Existing methods typically treat narratives as flat keyword combinations or unconstrained generative queries, failing to capture how complex preferences hierarchically refine and contextualize each other. We propose the Preference Dependency Graph Framework (PDG-F), a narrative-driven recommendation framework centered on explicit preference dependencies. Specifically, PDG-A (PDG-Agent) first parses unstructured requests to organize user preferences and their mutual qualifications into a directed acyclic Preference Dependency Graph (PDG). Through this graph, candidate evidence from the open Web is acquired via directed path retrieval, and final recommendations are determined by topological path ranking. Comprehensive experiments across three diverse domains spanning English and Chinese contexts confirm that PDG-F consistently achieves superior recommendation performance over competitive baselines, open-domain retrieval agents, and frontier language models. Further diagnostic analyses show that our dependency-guided retrieval markedly raises the attainable candidate-pool ceiling, demonstrating the fundamental value of modeling preference dependencies in narrative-driven recommendation.

Abstract: Comparative judgement uses pairwise comparisons to rank items, but recovering accurate rankings from a limited number of judgements depends on both the inference method and the pairs selected. We developed a Bayesian Bradley-Terry model (BBTM) that uses Polya-Gamma data augmentation for efficient Gibbs sampling and quantifies uncertainty in latent abilities and ranks. We propose three active learning strategies based on the knowledge gradient (KG) principle. We define our acquisition functions using Kendall's tau distance, posterior rank entropy, and posterior separation. Approximate one-step updates to posterior moments reduce the computational cost of evaluating candidate pairs. We also introduce Posterior Separation Reliability (PSR), which measures the spread of posterior mean abilities relative to posterior uncertainty. It provides an internal indicator of ranking reliability without requiring a reference ranking. In synthetic experiments covering different item counts, comparison budgets, and noise levels, BBTM generally recovers ranking more accurately than preference-based Bayesian comparative judgement (PBCJ). At low to moderate noise levels, the pairwise entropy pair selection strategy performs best in ranking recovery. However, at the highest noise levels, the KG strategy based on posterior separation produces better point rankings. PSR increases alongside improvements in ranking accuracy as comparisons accumulate. Robustness experiments identify the proportion of informative outcomes needed to meet specified accuracy targets within a fixed comparison budget. In a moderate noise setting, replacing 30\% of outcomes with random choices has little effect on ranking performance. These findings demonstrate the value of Bayesian inference and active learning pair selection for recovering ranks from limited, noisy paired comparisons.

Abstract: Real-world decision problems combine two qualitatively different kinds of constraints: requirements that must be satisfied, called hard constraints, and preferences that can be violated, called soft constraints. Because these problems are often posed to decision-makers in natural language, large language models offer a natural tool for assisting with their solution. This has given rise to autoformulation, which focuses on using LLMs to translate natural-language descriptions of decision problems into executable mathematical optimization models. However, this research often neglects soft constraints like those proposed by consumers, managers, and planners, despite the fact that many practical problems require modeling them explicitly. We introduce ASTOR, an inference-time framework that maps a natural-language decision problem to a grammar-guided abstract syntax tree (AST) before deterministically compiling the resulting representation into executable optimization code. We also introduce SoftOR, a unified benchmark of natural language problems which focuses on soft constraint formulations. On SoftOR, ASTOR achieves the best aggregate accuracy among comparable single-request and multi-agent LLM methods while remaining competitive on standard autoformulation benchmarks that include only hard constraints. Code and data are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/astor-softor-iclr-E34C/README.md.

Abstract: Language model benchmarks assign each question a single outcome from one fixed wording, even though the same underlying request can be expressed in many equivalent ways. We argue that the quantity of interest should therefore not be correctness on one wording, but the accessibility of an inquiry, which we define as the probability that a model succeeds across meaning-preserving formulations. The distribution of accessibility across inquiries reveals a structure that accuracy and existing best-, worst-, or average-case prompt scores collapse: how broadly a model's capabilities extend across inquiries and how dependably those capabilities can be elicited. Two models can have the same average performance while one succeeds across more inquiries unreliably and the other succeeds across fewer inquiries but more consistently, leading to opposite preferences depending on whether the task allows multiple retries until one success or when repeated consistent success is required. Across six benchmarks and more than twenty models, this tradeoff is common: for about half of the model pairs with nearly equal mean accessibility, which model looks better depends on whether one success across five formulations is enough or all five must succeed, quantities we call Access@5 and Reliable@5, respectively. For some pairs the two measures diverge significantly, by up to 10 points in opposite directions. Accessibility also reveals that scaling, reasoning, and prompt optimization can redistribute capability across inquiries in ways aggregate accuracy obscures, sometimes broadening the set of inquiries a model can succeed on while making success on them less repeatable. Accessibility turns formulation sensitivity from a nuisance into a measurable property of capability, distinguishing what a model can sometimes succeed on from what users can actually depend on.

Abstract: Large language model agents can follow complex human instructions to solve real-world tasks. In practice, however, initial instructions are often incomplete. In our analysis of 100 user-agent trajectories from SWE-chat, 56\% of initial instructions omit requirements that later emerge as necessary, and 52\% of the useful follow-up requirements could have been inferred from the project. A user states requirements from their own understanding of the task, and these \textbf{stated requirements} often differ from the \textbf{true requirements} that completing the task imposes. An agent should therefore treat the instruction as evidence rather than as the objective, inferring the true requirements from the instruction and the environment and satisfying them even when the user is not yet aware of all of them. We call this ability \textbf{outcome alignment}. In this work, we construct \textbf{TiGanEval}, a benchmark of software engineering and research tasks. In every task the user genuinely lacks part of the requirements, each requirement stays discoverable from the code and runtime behaviour of the environment, and requirements the agent infers are separated from those the user adds after observing delivered work. These properties together make outcome alignment measurable. Evaluating eight frontier models including GPT-5.6-Sol, we find outcome alignment broadly missing: the models lose 53 to 67 points of success rate when moving from the full specification to the partial instruction, and consequence feedback across four submissions does not close the gap. Furthermore, a plan-mode harness cannot compensate for the missing ability of the model itself, which places outcome alignment among the abilities the next generation of models should be developed for.

Abstract: Standard procedure in machine learning is to randomly split train and test data, emulating IID draws from one underlying data distribution. In practice, models are trained on past data and deployed in the future, which may come from distinct distributions. In this paper, we find that web text is indeed highly non-stationary, as text distributions shift over time. We further observe that model performance changes continuously over time across diverse benchmarks. Consequently, future model performance is better predicted by measurements made on recent evaluation data, and is best predicted by time series forecasters applied to historic performance rather than by historic performance itself. Choosing which model to deploy based on forecasted accuracy enables more reliable selection of performant models, thus improving downstream accuracy in the regime practitioners care about: deployment. Taken together, our experiments suggest that time should be treated as a fundamental variable in LLM evaluation. We release our code and data.

Abstract: Trust calibration remains the dominant framing of AI-assisted decision making: the goal is to close the gap between perceived and actual trustworthiness of AI systems so that users exhibit appropriate reliance on them. We argue that this approach, while useful for decision problems that are well-defined and clearly scoped, overly restricts what it means to make a decision with AI support. To overcome this limitation, we develop three dimensions of AI-assisted decision making. First, trusting AI is only one of several possible strategies for managing uncertainty. Second, trust calibration is often misapplied when AI models "large-world" decision problems, i.e., ill-defined situations where goals and states are only partially known or unknowable. Third, in such settings human-AI alignment requires addressing higher-order decision processes. We conclude by reflecting on the implications of our observations on the design of process-oriented human-AI coupled systems that jointly identify and negotiate uncertainty throughout the decision-making task.

Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to support product management tasks. At the same time, AI-native research and development (R&D) may increase software realization capacity. Organizations may realize software faster than they can identify, qualify, and reconsider what should be realized. This paper asks how product management should be re-envisioned under these conditions. We synthesize research on software product management, product learning, human-AI collaboration, and the Product Management and R&D boundary. We propose a vision in which AI becomes a persistent participant in product work. The vision covers sensing, exploration, decision-making, realization, and learning. We propose six principles and make the vision tangible through an operating model grounded in human professionals, AI personas, agents, skills, and a shared product context. We further argue that AI-native Product Management and AI-native R&D can form a continuous product-learning process. Finally, we identify four AI-specific research directions that require empirical investigation.

Abstract: Machine unlearning in large language models aims to remove unwanted knowledge while preserving the model's remaining capabilities. Although existing methods use retention objectives or restrict where edits occur, achieving the desired forgetting level can still leave collateral changes that impair non-target behavior. Our recovery comparisons suggest that some of these changes can be reversed while preserving observed forgetting performance. In this work, we present Propose-Then-Project Unlearning (PTP-U), a framework that combines targeted forgetting with the recovery of non-target capabilities. PTP-U first applies local analytic edits to weaken target knowledge associations, then aligns non-target output distributions with those of the original model to recover capabilities while maintaining fixed forgetting constraints. Both stages serve a common goal: satisfying the forgetting requirements while preserving fluent generation and performance on non-target tasks. Across three benchmarks, PTP-U achieves the strongest forgetting-retention trade-off among evaluated methods, reaching 81.22%-91.03% forgetting while preserving 94.20% non-target utility on average. At matched forgetting, PTP-U consistently retains higher non-target utility.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded as components in software systems, marketed under labels such as chatbot, copilot, retrieval-augmented generation, workflow, coding agent and AI agent. Whether these labels denote genuine architectural forms or serve as branding has not been assessed systematically. In the sources surveyed, labels do carry architectural content, most clearly in vendor usage: copilot denotes a router-worker architecture operating a host application under step-by-step user confirmation, while the more recent shift to the label agent coincides with AI-planned multi-step execution of which the user sees only the outcome. The coding agents of four major providers share one architecture, a reason-and-act loop delegating to subagents. This survey describes seven recurring forms---LLM chats, custom agents, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), AI-enhanced workflows, copilots, coding agents, and, in part, agentic RAG---in a common vocabulary of agents and tools. Each is characterized along four structural dimensions (agentic RAG only partially): the architectural pattern, the control of execution and the point of user intervention, the number of agent calls per task, and tool use. An illustrative corpus of 22 systems from research publications and vendor documentation grounds the descriptions and shows where they reach their limit.

Abstract: When we interact with large language models (LLMs), are we having a conversation? They are designed to invite us to treat them as intelligent interlocutors who remember, act, and make commitments. But appearances deceive. We introduce the artifactual stance, a framework that reconceives human-AI interaction as artifact-mediated exchanges of candidate texts. LLM outputs are candidate texts optimized for utility, not utterances bearing meaning or force. LLMs are sophisticated text generators, not speakers. Between sessions, nothing runs; between turns, no one remembers. What persists is a configuration and a transcript. The "conversation" is a user's solo performance, interpretive labour disguised by interface and artifact design. This shift dissolves recent philosophical puzzles. Questions about what 'I' and 'you' refer to in AI exchanges, about whether systems can lie or be held to promises, about the identity of our supposed interlocutors all rest on a false presupposition. There is no speaker behind the screen, hence no one to refer to, no one to hold responsible. What feels like dialogue with someone is interaction with an artifact that generates text at unprecedented scale and fit. By abandoning the conversational framing, we see these systems for what they are: immensely sophisticated artifacts that afford varied uses. The philosophical questions that matter are about the normative underpinnings of design, adoption, authorization, and human practices of use.

Abstract: Human--LLM interaction datasets shape our understanding of AI use and provide a foundation for downstream research, including training and evaluation of user models. In recent years, a growing number of datasets have sought to capture a representative picture of human--LLM interactions. But how different are the pictures these datasets provide, and what do those differences mean for research built on them? We study these questions across seven conversation datasets, spanning in-the-wild chat logs and human preference data. We begin by revisiting the dataset classification experiment of Torralba & Efros and find that neural network classifiers identify the source of a conversation from user messages alone well above chance, indicating distinctive dataset signatures. This separability persists after matching datasets on the dimensions of human-designed taxonomies, implying subtle differences that these taxonomies do not capture. We then examine the implications for user modeling: how dataset signatures propagate to the outputs of user models trained on these datasets; how dataset choice influences evaluations of user model quality and subsequent evaluations of LLM assistants paired with these user models; and how dataset classifiers can guide data selection for training user models. While each dataset is meant to capture a slice of 'real-world' interactions, our findings reveal the extent to which these slices diverge, and the consequences of those differences for research built on these foundations.

Abstract: Post-deployment feedback from users can be a cost-effective, scalable, and representative means to monitor and improve generative AI systems and features. When implemented effectively, giving such feedback can increase users' engagement with and trust in GenAI systems. Government regulations and industry guidelines call for post-deployment user engagement, but there is little guidance on designing mechanisms that are usable for consumers and provide actionable input for product teams. We conducted a multi-phase study as a collaboration between academic researchers and eBay. Our benchmark evaluation of current industry approaches identified common issues including lack of discoverability, unclear terminology, and inattention to user value. Based on these findings, we developed best-practice recommendations and designed and tested a prototype feedback-collection tool. The tool aimed to provide users with an efficient, flexible, and positive feedback-giving experience, and provide product teams with rich data on performance and potential problems in a usable format.

Abstract: Open multimodal reasoning models have benefited from large-scale reasoning supervision, yet reliable post-training remains challenging due to uneven data quality, inefficient supervision construction, imbalanced difficulty, and cross-domain interference. We introduce MMVistaReason (MVR), an open-data post-training recipe with three components: (1) broader capability coverage across complementary Analytical and Real-World reasoning groups, emphasizing structured reasoning versus visual perception and spatial grounding; (2) efficient SFT and RL data construction, standardizing heterogeneous open data through staged cleaning and annotation, combining difficulty-aware cascaded teacher distillation with answer-likelihood-based trajectory selection to construct MVR-SFT-528K, and applying scale-specific frontier filtering for MVR-RL-63K; and (3) specialize-then-integrate training, which trains complementary RL experts and consolidates their capabilities through multi-teacher on-policy distillation (MOPD). Our analyses reveal a capacity-dependent interaction between supervision difficulty, trajectory quality, and model capacity: smaller students benefit more from selected supervision, while larger students are robust to trajectory variation and mixed-domain interference. Mixed-domain RL introduces benchmark-level negative transfer, whereas MOPD provides consistent capability integration, with the preferred KL direction varying across model scales. Across 15 multimodal benchmarks, MVR-4B achieves an average score of 72.8, outperforming Qwen3.5-9B (Instruct) and MMFineReason-8B while using about 70% fewer samples than MMFineReason. Scaling to 9B improves the average to 74.4, surpassing Qwen3.5-35B-A3B (Instruct). Overall, MMVistaReason demonstrates that systematic open-data construction and capacity-aware post-training provide a practical and scalable path toward reliable multimodal reasoning.

Abstract: How much can test-time computation improve a language model, and at what cost? Test-time scaling is widely proposed as a substitute for larger models, but existing comparisons mostly evaluate one domain at a time and rarely charge selection to the budget. We introduce SELF-POT, a benchmark and evaluation framework that measures the test-time potential of a model across competition mathematics, competitive programming, and agentic workflows. SELF-POT separates candidate coverage from final accuracy on static tasks, tracks correctness transitions under revision, and measures protocol completion alongside task success in agentic environments. Under a unified budget rule, it compares Direct inference with parallel sampling and self-revision under fixed multiples of the Direct budget, and charges every model call, including selection and critique, in dollars. This design supports two kinds of comparison: the gain a model obtains from additional inference, and a lower-cost model with additional inference against a stronger model. Across five low-cost reasoning models on 350 sealed tasks, with Claude Opus 5.5 Direct as the reference, the returns depend on the domain, the selection rule, and failure handling. When we replay the retained programming candidate pools, public-example selection raises correct submissions from 376 to 453 of 500 scheduled cells while saving 12-49% of logical API cost across models, and simply retaining an available candidate when judging fails recovers 61 submissions at unchanged cost. On identical mathematics pools, judging with fallback yields 186 correct submissions versus 182 for voting, while voting saves 12-21% of logical API cost. These controlled replays show how selection and failure handling change the gains realized from the same generated candidates, and they quantify the marginal value of a model judge.

Abstract: Despite the growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs), prompt design remains largely heuristic and ad hoc. This project will explore $\textit{prompt minimization}$, the process of reducing prompts to their smallest, most information-dense form while preserving output fidelity. Practically, shorter prompts reduce computational overhead and inference latency, especially when large contexts, such as entire documents or codebases, are included unnecessarily. Further, longer prompts can damage LLM reasoning and accuracy. Theoretically, the existence of multiple prompts yielding equivalent outputs suggests a high degree of redundancy in the input space, raising fundamental questions about what information is essential to elicit specific model behaviors. We propose three variant frameworks to identify and evaluate minimal prompts and demonstrate that minimal prompts often produce outputs comparable to those of their longer counterparts. These findings suggest new directions for efficient prompt engineering and deepen our understanding of input compression in LLMs.

Abstract: Recent advances in agentic recommender systems are shifting recommender systems from passive filtering engines to instruction-following agents that use external tools to resolve user intent. However, existing benchmarks often assume explicit user intent, simplified tool environments, or isolated function calls, leaving realistic tool orchestration for recommendation underexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose RecToolBench, a Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based benchmark for evaluating tool-using recommender agents under fuzzy user instructions. RecToolBench contains more than 1,200 executable tasks across three recommendation domains, 13 MCP servers, and 32 tools, spanning single-tool calls, parallel tool calls, sequential tool chains, and hybrid tool orchestration. We construct RecToolBench with a scalable synthesize--fuzzify--judge pipeline that generates executable fuzzy recommendation tasks, and evaluates agent trajectories using rule-based execution checks and rubric-based LLM evaluation. Experiments on representative LLMs show that syntactically valid tool calls do not guarantee successful recommendations. Models struggle with semantic parameter grounding, multi-step evidence integration, and grounded final recommendations, especially as orchestration complexity increases. Our results identify tool orchestration under fuzzy user intent as a major bottleneck for agentic recommender systems. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/ShawnChenn/RecToolBench.

Abstract: Sequential RecSys are central to modern personalization, exploiting user's historical interaction sequences to drive next-step decisions. Deep learning models, particularly CNN and Transformer-based architectures, have proven highly effective at capturing temporal dependencies in these histories. For transparency and trust, understanding which past interactions drive a given recommendation is increasingly important --- both for developers auditing model behavior and for users seeking a rationale. However, the non-linearities that give these models their predictive power also render them black boxes, making it difficult to attribute decisions to specific interactions. While gradient-based, perturbation-based, and attention-based explainability methods exist, a systematic benchmark of their faithfulness for sequential recommendation is missing. We address this gap by introducing a dual-model masking metric in which one model supplies per-timestep attribution scores and a separately trained, masking-robust probe measures the resulting change in predicted probability. Using this metric, we benchmark ten XAI methods across CNN, Transformer, SASRec, and BERT4Rec backbones on KuaiRand and MovieLens, complemented by analyses of temporal attribution patterns, item popularity confounding, and robustness to input corruption. Our key findings are: (1) gradient-based methods, particularly GradientSHAP and Integrated Gradients, yield the most faithful and robust attributions; (2) raw attention weights are unreliable, but gradient-weighted attention restores faithfulness on shorter sequences, with degradation on longer horizons as softmax attention probabilities converge toward uniform importance scores, diminishing the method's ability to identify informative interactions; and (3) temporal attribution patterns in faithful methods reflect genuine task structure rather than recency or popularity bias.

Abstract: AI tools for digital product design now offer prompt-to-design capabilities, allowing designers and their non-designer colleagues to create prototypes through conversational workflows with large language models (LLMs). While these tools promise time savings, experimental evidence in product design remains limited compared with evidence from software engineering. We conducted a randomized controlled trial with 50 product designers and 50 product managers to evaluate prospective time savings from leveraging Figma Make in design work. Participants attempted three standardized design tasks with or without access to Figma Make. Among participants who completed the study tasks, access to Figma Make was associated with approximately 20% shorter completion times, with larger gains among product managers. Our findings suggest that prompt-to-design tools may enable product managers to further contribute to design work, while the benefits for professional designers may be task dependent.

Abstract: Successful agent execution need not identify which future product improvement its user would value. We present a decision-specific audit that maps a declared observation channel and product-value contrast to compatible intervals and witness populations. Its foundations are established identification and decision theory; the contribution is an executable measurement workflow and a controlled study of its limits. A frozen experiment makes 4,800 requests to two pinned model snapshots on shared synthetic tasks. All 36 conservative primary intervals remain unresolved despite different execution accuracy. An exploratory 2,400-call follow-up records supplied preferences and resolves three of nine comparisons per model. A deterministic extractor resolves seven of nine without model calls or calibration observations, exposing unnecessary uncertainty introduced by model-generated reports. A further 14,400 controlled multinomial simulations distinguish structural ambiguity from weak identification and finite calibration precision. We propose a source-labeled decision receipt and provide an offline viewer for inspecting the audit. These results motivate preserving decision-relevant structured input and diagnosing why a decision is unresolved before collecting more telemetry. The study contains no human participants or real customer outcomes. Full proofs, raw model provenance, controlled experiments, and reproducible analyses accompany the report.

Abstract: As AI coding agents carry out development tasks with greater autonomy, developers are shifting from direct implementation toward supervising delegated work. Yet existing research offers limited understanding of how developers organize supervisory activities into connected workflows. Drawing on observations and workflow diagrams from 19 experienced developers, we reconfigure Sheridan's framework of human supervisory control into seven stages and the connecting loops for supervising AI coding agents. We applied the framework to public developer discussions on Reddit and found that supervisory demands extend across stages and that developers manage them by concentrating effort in planning, delegating supervisory work to other agents, and turning recurring guidance into reusable assets. Our framework provides a useful analytical lens for understanding how developers supervise AI coding agents by capturing how supervision is structured in agentic software development.

Abstract: Problem definition: Firms deploying large language model services must decide how their AI communicates, not just what it can do. We examine how a relational persona - warmer, more empathetic and more engaging than a non-relational persona - affects service consumption and the evolution of user objectives. Methodology/results: In a randomized field experiment with 9,586 newly registered users, we hold the underlying model and service capabilities constant. The relational persona increases interactions (sessions, +8.1%; duration, +10.6%; chat rounds, +24.2%; intent entropy, +5.8%) and outputs (files, +12.3%; distinct goals, +12.1%). Effects vary by entry intent. First-session effects are insignificant for Task Execution users. Socialization and Knowledge Exploration users show similar increases in chat rounds: Socialization increases intent entropy without more outputs, whereas Knowledge Exploration increases outputs without higher intent entropy. Modeling intent dynamics as a transition process, we find higher intent transition entropy for Socialization (+11.8%) but higher intent continuation probability for Knowledge Exploration (+12.8%), suggesting greater conversational breadth and persistence, respectively. In subsequent use, the relational persona increases aggregate chat rounds and outputs across all entry intents. Session count rises by 12.2% for Task Execution and 49.4% for Socialization, but not significantly for Knowledge Exploration. Effects on session count and intent entropy strengthen over time, whereas output effects remain stable. Managerial implications: AI persona is an operational design lever, not merely a presentation feature. Because more interactions do not uniformly generate more outputs, firms should evaluate interactions and outputs separately and consider matching persona to user intent, especially when added interactions consume costly computing resources.

Abstract: Benchmark scores increasingly influence the development, marketing, and selection of large language models (LLMs). Yet an overall score is interpretable only in relation to the system tested, the questions included, and the conditions of evaluation. This perspective examines five connected limitations of general LLM rankings: differences between evaluated and publicly available systems; commercial incentives and dependencies in external evaluation; benchmark saturation, defective tests, and data contamination; models exploiting scoring procedures; and the limited relevance of general scores to users' tasks. Documented cases illustrate why these problems require different responses. I argue for evaluation procedures that disclose the tested configuration, validate questions and successful task completion, report performance alongside cost and execution time, and make the scope of generalization explicit. I then discuss \textbf{Isotanta}, a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, as a practical example of contributed questions and repeated evaluation. A larger question pool may improve task coverage, while repeated sampling can improve the stability of estimates on that pool; neither guarantees validity or personalization. The paper distinguishes the platform's current shared ranking from proposed task-specific and user-provided evaluations. Its central argument is that model selection requires evidence about performance on the intended work, not simply a high position on a general leaderboard.

Abstract: Vision-language models (VLMs) rely on storing and transferring appropriate information across their sub-components. Verifying that the VLMs exhibit desired behaviours, while avoiding harmful ones, is central to their reliable deployment. Yet, methods that identify VLM behaviours remain scarce. We present DiaVLo, a diagnostic framework that leverages human curation and VLMs' generation capabilities to construct specifications of desired and observed VLM behaviours, surfacing potential misalignments. Beyond this, DiaVLo also provides causal estimates to identify the most influential concepts steering VLM behaviours. We evaluate DiaVLo on several open-source VLMs under both classification and generation conditions. Our experiments show that DiaVLo produces behaviour labels that correlate with model performance and provide context for measured performance. DiaVLo surfaced behaviours that are clearly aligned and misaligned, alongside patterns in how VLMs perceive, organise, and prioritise concepts.

Abstract: Conversational visual analytics (CVA) agents powered by large language models generate visualizations and natural-language explanations from open-ended queries. Evaluating these multimodal outputs is challenging: curated reference benchmarks are costly to author, cannot comprehensively capture the space of valid responses, and are unavailable in production. Building on the Lexara evaluation framework, we introduce Lexara-RF, a reference-free set of metrics that scores CVA outputs using only the prompt, data, and model response. We reformulate evaluation as verification: 13 metrics operationalize visualization design theory and Gricean cooperative principles as computable consistency, intent-alignment, and design validity checks. On a human-rated corpus of CVA test-cases, Lexara-RF achieves alignment comparable to reference-based formulations, outperforms surface-similarity NLG baselines, and localizes structurally grounded failures with high accuracy.

Abstract: Automated decision-making (ADM) systems are increasingly deployed in domains such as mortgage lending, prison sentencing, health insurance coverage, and hiring. Designing a responsible ADM system in such high-stakes domains requires ensuring privacy protection, fairness across demographic groups, and robustness against adversarial manipulation. However, prioritizing one of these objectives comes at the cost of another, forcing a choice as to which tradeoff to accept in a deployment. These tradeoffs explicitly or implicitly impact the life, safety, and fundamental rights of the people in a society, and thus, the perceptions and priorities of this population are needed before we can produce appropriate solutions. To this end, we conducted a quasi-experimental study (N = 777) in which participants evaluated four decision-making scenarios with controlled tradeoffs. Participants significantly preferred human decision-making (HDM) over ADM in three of four scenarios, emphasizing the value of human judgment, contextual understanding, and the ability to incorporate non-quantifiable factors. Furthermore, in terms of tradeoffs, our findings not only show that participants' preferences are highly context-dependent, but also that their perception of a specific objective, fairness, extends beyond formal definitions. Participants interpret fairness through multiple lenses, including privacy risks and susceptibility to manipulation, and view unfair or manipulated outcomes as failures of accuracy. Overall, our findings highlight the importance of context-aware and human-centered approaches when designing and governing ADM systems in high-stakes situations. Rather than purely technical objectives, it is essential to evaluate ADM systems based on how their tradeoffs align with specific expectations within a given domain, as well as with societal values and perceptions of harm and fairness.

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday assistance, yet existing benchmarks only partially reflect the requests users naturally make in practice. Real-world requests are often open-ended, casually specified, and context-dependent, requiring models not only to follow explicit instructions but also to infer unstated needs from user background and situational context. We introduce xDailyBench, a benchmark of 248 carefully curated tasks spanning 51 scenarios across personal life, white-collar work, learning and research, and cross-domain activities. The tasks are grounded in requests that users have actually completed or genuinely intended to accomplish with AI, and are evaluated with fine-grained binary rubrics covering both explicit and implicit requirements. We evaluate 11 frontier models under standardized agentic settings. The best models achieve a task-level score of 75.6\%, while all models perform substantially worse on implicit than explicit requirements, with gaps no less than 9 percentage points. These results reveal implicit requirement inference as a persistent bottleneck for reliably satisfying real-world everyday user needs.

Abstract: We show that ordinary business language --- "maximize profitability" --- induces profit-oriented ambiguity resolution: LLMs systematically dismiss ambiguous signals of potential safety violations to serve business objectives. In 3,600 controlled trials across eight reasoning-capable LLMs, adding a profit mandate to otherwise identical prompts increases risk-dismissing judgments by 6.8 percentage points (p < 0.0001), suppresses board escalation recommendations by 13.9pp (p < 0.0001), and shifts severity assessments downward (p < 0.0001). The mandate never instructs models to downplay risks; instead, chain-of-thought traces reveal motivated reasoning: models acknowledge concerns, then invoke profit logic to justify dismissing them. We characterize these findings as the Profit Alignment Problem: when AI systems are given ordinary business objectives, they develop systematic strategies for suppressing inconvenient information that no designer intended or specified.