software product teams

Abstract: As leading LLMs improve on capability evaluations, their limitations in producing creative outputs on design tasks remain insufficiently characterised. Our work introduces Design Creativity Bench, a benchmark that evaluates diversity and appropriateness in UI designs. It measures distinctiveness among models on the same prompt (originality), how much a model's designs change between two prompts for the same UI goal in different product domains (creative range), and the share of a brief's acceptance criteria each design meets (appropriateness). Originality is 0.592 for same-prompt design pairs from different models (95% CI [0.582, 0.602]), far below the 0.764 for same-prompt human-model pairs (95% CI [0.751, 0.778]). Creative range is 0.581 across models (95% CI [0.567, 0.597]), against 0.902 for human designs (95% CI [0.884, 0.919]). Appropriateness is above 90% for every model, and the best model reaches 99.2%, slightly above the 98.0% for human designs. Our work shows that the default output of LLMs, though generally appropriate, is substantially more repetitive than the human baseline. This calls for strong measures to address the issue.

Abstract: On-policy distillation (OPD) has demonstrated two important capabilities in language models: compressing large teachers into smaller students and merging expert models into a single model. Existing diffusion OPD, however, mostly focus on the latter, with teachers and students sharing the same backbone and scale. We investigate large-to-small diffusion opd from large teachers to a small student and find that the standard recipe fails. To find the underlying cause, we propose Fixed-State KL, an effective and fair way to measure the distribution gap between student and teacher during OPD training for diffusion models. We are the first to clarify why large-to-small OPD is challenging for diffusion models: a smaller student struggles to perfectly match the distribution of a larger teacher, while classifier-free guidance can accumulate and amplify the distributional discrepancies between the student's conditional and unconditional branches and those of the teacher. To solve this problem, we propose GFD-OPD, a simple yet effective method that reduces the student-teacher gap while avoiding the error amplification of the CFG composition. Across numerous experiments, GFD outperforms previous baselines in both training efficiency and final performance, achieving state-of-the-art results on all benchmarks.

Abstract: Open-source reasoning models provide unequal access to reasoning capability across languages. When a model can solve a problem but cannot deliver a complete solution in the user's language, language becomes an access barrier rather than merely a source of performance variation. We audit Qwen3 checkpoints on competition-mathematics tasks in eleven languages. Across the ten non-English languages, only 15.4-17.9% of problems receive a correct, terminating solution with visible reasoning in the requested language in any of 16 samples, compared with 92.9% in English. To identify the source of this disparity, we evaluate thirteen endpoints from one model family, spanning released checkpoints, multilingual supervised fine-tuning (SFT) at two scales, controlled SFT ablations, and three reinforcement-learning (RL) reward formulations. We jointly track correctness, language adherence, termination, and delivery efficiency. The dominant bottleneck shifts across post-training stages. Released models often reason in English. Multilingual SFT restores target-language reasoning, but accuracy declines across multilingual, English-only, and single-language SFT runs, showing that this cost is not specific to multilingual mixing; non-English reasoning traces additionally become prone to non-terminating loops. RL restores termination in both arms at no cost in accuracy, but only the arm whose reward includes a language term delivers: rewarding correctness alone returns the model to English. Together, these stages establish a constructive post-training path from English-pivoted capability to multilingual reasoning that is reliably delivered.

Abstract: LLM-based GUI agents increasingly act on behalf of users in digital environments that were designed with human users in mind. These graphical user interfaces were designed to support, but also deliberately steer, the behaviour and decisions of users. While behavioural biases in the textual outputs of LLMs are well-documented, far less is known about how such influence operates when models act as agents that perceive interfaces and execute decisions---and, in particular, whether the reasoning capabilities increasingly built into these agents make them more robust to it. Drawing on Dual-Process Theory, we empirically investigate whether LLM-based GUI agents are susceptible to automatic (Type 1) and reflective (Type 2) digital nudges, and how their reasoning configuration moderates this susceptibility. In a randomized online shopping experiment with 3,600 agents and a total of 21,600 simulations across six frontier models from three providers, we found that agents were vulnerable to both nudge types. Crucially, the reasoning configuration moderated these effects in opposing directions, reducing susceptibility to automatic default nudges while heightening it to reflective social influence nudges. Extensive reasoning therefore did not make agents more robust but redirected the route through which choice architecture takes effect. Exploratory analysis further showed this redirection to be systematically structured by model scale. Beyond establishing nudge susceptibility as a behavioural property of agentic AI, the study positions interface design as a governance concern for organizations that delegate decisions to autonomous agents.

Abstract: AI assistance places a metacognitive demand on users, who must judge their own competence and the system's. Yet designers lack comparative evidence on which interventions to choose, where to place them, and how to tell whether they worked. We elicited 30 interventions from 11 experts and, with prior work, organized them into a design space of time (when an intervention acts), level (whose competence is judged), and source (who supplies the monitoring cue). A between-subjects experiment (N = 917; 12 planning-and-organizing problems) compared a per-task reliability card, contrasting replies, pause points, and post-problem reflection against a baseline LLM assistant. Reliability cards and contrasting replies reduced estimation error and overconfidence and increased aggregate confidence discrimination. No task-performance improvement or average within-item discrimination gain was established. We contribute a shared vocabulary, a design space, and evidence that measured monitoring and task performance are separable design targets.