Markets increasingly accommodate large language models (LLMs) as autonomous decision-making agents. As this transition occurs, it becomes critical to evaluate how these agents behave relative to their human and task-specific statistical predecessors. In this work, we present results from an empirical study comparing humans (N=216), multiple frontier LLMs, and customized Bayesian agents in dynamic multi-player bargaining games under identical conditions. Bayesian agents extract the highest surplus with aggressive trade proposals that are frequently rejected. Humans and LLMs achieve comparable aggregate surplus within their groups, but exhibit different trading strategies. LLMs favor conservative, concessionary proposals that are usually accepted by other LLMs, while humans propose trades that are consistent with fairness norms but are more likely to be rejected. These findings highlight that performance parity—a common benchmark in agent evaluation—can mask substantive procedural differences in how LLMs behave in complex multi-agent interactions.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to model and augment collective decision-making, it is critical to examine their alignment with human social reasoning.We present an empirical framework for assessing collective alignment, in contrast to prior work on the individual level.Using the Lost at Sea social psychology task, we conduct a largescale online experiment (N = 748), randomly assigning groups to leader elections with either visible demographic attributes (e.g.name, gender) or pseudonymous aliases.We then simulate matched LLM groups conditioned on the human data, benchmarking Gemini 2.5, GPT 4.1, Claude Haiku 3.5, and Gemma 3. LLM behaviors diverge: some mirror human biases; others mask these biases and attempt to compensate for them.We empirically demonstrate that human-AI alignment in collective reasoning depends on context, cues, and modelspecific inductive biases.Understanding how LLMs align with collective human behavior is critical to advancing socially-aligned AI, and demands dynamic benchmarks that capture the complexities of collective reasoning.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs), with their expansive world knowledge and reasoning capabilities, present a unique opportunity for end-users to create personalized AI sensors capable of reasoning about complex situations. A user could describe a desired sensing task in natural language (e.g., "alert if my toddler is getting into mischief"), with the MLLM analyzing the camera feed and responding within seconds. In a formative study, we found that users saw substantial value in defining their own sensors, yet struggled to articulate their unique personal requirements and debug the sensors through prompting alone. To address these challenges, we developed Gensors, a system that empowers users to define customized sensors supported by the reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. Gensors 1) assists users in eliciting requirements through both automatically-generated and manually created sensor criteria, 2) facilitates debugging by allowing users to isolate and test individual criteria in parallel, 3) suggests additional criteria based on user-provided images, and 4) proposes test cases to help users "stress test" sensors on potentially unforeseen scenarios. In a user study, participants reported significantly greater sense of control, understanding, and ease of communication when defining sensors using Gensors. Beyond addressing model limitations, Gensors supported users in debugging, eliciting requirements, and expressing unique personal requirements to the sensor through criteria-based reasoning; it also helped uncover users' "blind spots" by exposing overlooked criteria and revealing unanticipated failure modes. Finally, we discuss how unique characteristics of MLLMs--such as hallucinations and inconsistent responses--can impact the sensor-creation process. These findings contribute to the design of future intelligent sensing systems that are intuitive and customizable by everyday users.

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (LLMs) have made it easier to rapidly prototype AI-powered features, especially for mobile use cases. However, gathering early, mobile-situated user feedback on these AI prototypes remains challenging. The broad scope and flexibility of LLMs means that, for a given use-case-specific prototype, there is a crucial need to understand the wide range of in-the-wild input users are likely to provide and their in-context expectations for the AI’s behavior. To explore the concept of in situ AI prototyping and testing, we created MobileMaker: a platform that enables designers to rapidly create and test mobile AI prototypes directly on devices. This tool also enables testers to make on-device, in-the-field revisions of prototypes using natural language. In an exploratory study with 16 participants, we explored how user feedback on prototypes created with MobileMaker compares to that of existing prototyping tools (e.g., Figma, prompt editors). Our findings suggest that MobileMaker prototypes enabled more serendipitous discovery of: model input edge cases, discrepancies between AI’s and user’s in-context interpretation of the task, and contextual signals missed by the AI. Furthermore, we learned that while the ability to make in-the-wild revisions led users to feel more fulfilled as active participants in the design process, it might also constrain their feedback to the subset of changes perceived as more actionable or implementable by the prototyping tool.

A critical aspect of any recommendation process is explaining the reasoning behind each recommendation. These explanations can not only improve users' experiences, but also change their perception of the recommendation quality. This work describes our human-centered design for our conversational movie recommendation agent, which explains its decisions as humans would. After exploring and analyzing a corpus of dyadic interactions, we developed a computational model of explanations. We then incorporated this model in the architecture of a conversational agent and evaluated the resulting system via a user experiment. Our results show that social explanations can improve the perceived quality of both the system and the interaction, regardless of the intrinsic quality of the recommendations.