Investment decisions are often driven by time pressure and emotion, leaving investors vulnerable to cognitive biases. Mobile trading apps intensify these tendencies, yet existing interventions rely on external constraints that fail to foster lasting behavioral change. We investigate how reflection-centered approaches support mindful decision-making across a spectrum of investor expertise. We present MindStock, a technology probe providing principle-anchored feedback by integrating user-defined principles with behavioral data mirroring trading patterns. In a 6-week field study with 16 investors, we found that meaningful reflection comes from the tension between principles and behavioral data. Principles give context to otherwise opaque metrics, while data keeps principles from drifting into vague self-assurances. This pattern varied by experience: novices gravitated toward normative rule-setting, while experienced investors used the system to test and refine their own assumptions. We contribute design implications for supporting reflection in high-stakes decision-making contexts.

Short-form videos have become one of the most addictive forms of digital media, keeping users endlessly scrolling with little self-regulation. Most existing interventions, screen-time limits or warning messages, are imposed from the outside and often lead to resistance or are simply ignored. To explore a more empowering approach, we designed a self-regulatory intervention that allows users to set their own viewing goals, reflect on what they watch, and receive periodic feedback as well as a summary of their viewing behaviors. We conducted a 4-week field study with 20 participants, spanning baseline, intervention, and withdrawal phases. Participants became more conscious of their viewing and more self-disciplined, finding control over both the viewing quantity and quality. However, sustaining self-regulation proved challenging once the intervention was withdrawn. These findings highlight both the promise and fragility of self-regulatory strategies and point to new design opportunities for interventions that support sustainable self-regulation in short-form videos.

Team-based collaboration is a cornerstone of modern creative work. Recent advances in generative AI open possibilities for humans to collaborate with multiple AI agents in distinct roles to address complex creative workflows. Yet, how to form Human-Multi-Agent Teams (HMATs) is underexplored, especially given that inter-agent interactions increase complexity and the risk of unexpected behaviors. In this exploratory study, we aim to understand how to form HMATs for creative work using CrafTeam, a technology probe that allows users to form and collaborate with their teams. We conducted a study with 12 design practitioners, in which participants iterated through a three-step cycle: forming HMATs, ideating with their teams, and reflecting on their teams' ideation. Our findings reveal that while participants initially attempted autonomous team operations, they ultimately adopted team formations in which they directly orchestrated agents. We discuss design considerations for HMAT formation that humans can effectively orchestrate multiple agents.

Effective feedback, including critique and evaluation, helps designers develop design concepts and refine their ideas, supporting informed decision-making throughout the iterative design process. However, in studio-based design courses, students often struggle to provide feedback due to a lack of confidence and fear of being judged, which limits their ability to develop essential feedback-giving skills. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) suggest that role-playing with AI agents can let learners engage in multi-turn feedback without the anxiety of external judgment or the time constraints of real-world settings. Yet prior studies have raised concerns that LLMs struggle to behave like real people in role-play scenarios, diminishing the educational benefits of these interactions. Therefore, designing AI-based agents that effectively support learners in practicing and developing intellectual reasoning skills requires more than merely assigning the target persona’s personality and role to the agent. By addressing these issues, we present Feed-O-Meter, a novel system that employs carefully designed LLM-based agents to create an environment in which students can practice giving design feedback. The system enables users to role-play as mentors, providing feedback to an AI mentee and allowing them to reflect on how that feedback impacts the AI mentee’s idea development process. A user study (N=24) indicated that Feed-O-Meter increased participants’ engagement and motivation through role-switching and helped them adjust feedback to be more comprehensible for an AI mentee. Based on these findings, we discuss future directions for designing systems to foster feedback skills in design education.

Patent examination remains an ongoing challenge in the NLP literature even after the advent of large language models (LLMs), as it requires an extensive yet nuanced human judgment on whether a submitted $\textit{claim}$ meets the statutory standards of $\textit{novelty}$ and $\textit{non-obviousness}$ against previously granted claims—$\textit{prior art}$—in expert domains. Previous NLP studies have approached this challenge as a prediction task (e.g., forecasting grant outcomes) with high-level proxies such as similarity metrics or classifiers trained on historical labels. However, this approach often overlooks the step-by-step evaluations that examiners must make with profound information, including rationales for the decisions provided in $\textit{office actions}$ documents, which also makes it harder to measure the current state of techniques in patent review processes. To fill this gap, we construct PANORAMA, a dataset of 8,143 U.S. patent examination records that preserves the full decision trails, including original applications, all cited references, $\textit{Non-Final Rejections}$, and $\textit{Notices of Allowance}$. Also, PANORAMA decomposes the trails into sequential benchmarks that emulate patent professionals' patent review processes and allow researchers to examine large language models' capabilities at each step of them. Our findings indicate that, although LLMs are relatively effective at retrieving relevant prior art and pinpointing the pertinent paragraphs, they struggle to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of patent claims. We discuss these results and argue that advancing NLP, including LLMs, in the patent domain requires a deeper understanding of real-world patent examination. Our dataset is openly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/LG-AI-Research/PANORAMA.