Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized for domain-specific tasks, yet evaluating their outputs remains challenging. A common strategy is to apply evaluation criteria to assess alignment with domain-specific standards, yet little is understood about how criteria differ across sources or where each type is most useful in the evaluation process. This study investigates criteria developed by domain experts, lay users, and LLMs to identify their complementary roles within an evaluation workflow. Results show that experts produce fact-based criteria with long-term value, lay users emphasize usability with a shorter-term focus, and LLMs target procedural checks for immediate task requirements. We also examine how criteria evolve between a priori and a posteriori phases, noting drift across stages as well as convergence in the a posteriori phase. Based on our observations, we propose design guidelines for a staged evaluation workflow combining the complementary strengths of these sources to balance quality, cost, and scalability.

The dark patterns, deceptive interface designs manipulating user behaviors, have been extensively studied for their effects on human decision-making and autonomy. Yet, with the rising prominence of LLM-powered GUI agents that automate tasks from high-level intents, understanding how dark patterns affect agents is increasingly important. We present a two-phase empirical study examining how agents, human participants, and human-AI teams respond to 16 types of dark patterns across diverse scenarios. Phase 1 highlights that agents often fail to recognize dark patterns, and even when aware, prioritize task completion over protective action. Phase 2 revealed divergent failure modes: humans succumb due to cognitive shortcuts and habitual compliance, while agents falter from procedural blind spots. Human oversight improved avoidance but introduced costs such as attentional tunneling and cognitive load. Our findings show neither humans nor agents are uniformly resilient, and collaboration introduces new vulnerabilities, suggesting design needs for transparency, adjustable autonomy, and oversight.

Large Language Model (LLM)-powered web GUI agents are increasingly automating everyday online tasks. Despite their popularity, little is known about how users’ preferences and values impact agents’ reasoning and behavior. In this work, we investigate how both explicit and implicit user preferences, as well as the underlying user values, influence agent decision-making and action trajectories. We built a controlled testbed of 14 common interactive web tasks, spanning shopping, travel, dining, and housing, each replicated from real websites and integrated with a low-fidelity LLM-based recommender system. We injected 12 human preferences and values as personas into four state-of-the-art agents and systematically analyzed their task behaviors. Our results show that preference and value-infused prompts consistently guided agents toward outcomes that reflected these preferences and values. While the absence of user preference or value guidance led agents to exhibit a strong efficiency bias and employ shortest-path strategies, their presence steered agents’ behavior trajectories through the greater use of corresponding filters and interactive web features. Despite their influence, dominant interface cues, such as discounts and advertisements, frequently overrode these effects, shortening the agents’ action trajectories and inducing rationalizations that masked rather than reflected value-consistent reasoning. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (1) an open-source testbed for studying the influence of values in agent behaviors, and (2) an empirical investigation of how user preferences and values shape web agent behaviors.

User iterates on their label definitions 5 3 System generates counter examples that vary in single dimensions The system learns pattern rules 2 User labels generated counterexamples 4

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in employing intelligent agents in writing. Previous work emphasizes the evaluation of the quality of end product—whether it was coherent and polished, overlooking the journey that led to the product, which is an invaluable dimension of the creative process. To understand how to recognize human efforts in co-writing with intelligent writing systems, we adapt Flower and Hayes’ cognitive process theory of writing and propose CoCo Matrix, a two-dimensional taxonomy of entropy and information gain, to depict the new human-agent co-writing model. We define four quadrants and situate thirty-four published systems within the taxonomy. Our research found that low entropy and high information gain systems are under-explored, yet offer promising future directions in writing tasks that benefit from the agent’s divergent planning and the human’s focused translation. CoCo Matrix, not only categorizes different writing systems but also deepens our understanding of the cognitive processes in human-agent co-writing. By analyzing minimal changes in the writing process, CoCo Matrix serves as a proxy for the writer’s mental model, allowing writers to reflect on their contributions. This reflection is facilitated through the measured metrics of information gain and entropy, which provide insights irrespective of the writing system used.

Over the years, the task of AI-assisted data annotation has seen remarkable advancements. However, a specific type of annotation task, the qualitative coding performed during thematic analysis, has characteristics that make effective human-AI collaboration difficult. Informed by a formative study, we designed PaTAT, a new AI-enabled tool that uses an interactive program synthesis approach to learn flexible and expressive patterns over user-annotated codes in real-time as users annotate data. To accommodate the ambiguous, uncertain, and iterative nature of thematic analysis, the use of user-interpretable patterns allows users to understand and validate what the system has learned, make direct fixes, and easily revise, split, or merge previously annotated codes. This new approach also helps human users to learn data characteristics and form new theories in addition to facilitating the “learning” of the AI model. PaTAT’s usefulness and effectiveness were evaluated in a lab user study.