Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Anna Polyanskaya

dblp:373/4255 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
0009-0005-8563-2561ORCID · reported

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Design research and methods · 77% Human-AI interaction · 23%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods
design cognition
0.912025
No Evidence for LLMs Being Useful in Problem Reframing · CHI 2025
Human-AI interaction › AI-assisted creativity
LLM-assisted design
0.312025
No Evidence for LLMs Being Useful in Problem Reframing · CHI 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

qualitative analysis · 0.9controlled experiment · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 No Evidence for LLMs Being Useful in Problem Reframing
abstract
Problem reframing is a designerly activity wherein alternative perspectives are created to recast what a stated design problem is about. Generating alternative problem frames is challenging because it requires devising novel and useful perspectives that fit the given problem context. Large language models (LLMs) could assist this activity via their generative capability. However, it is not clear whether they can help designers produce high-quality frames. Therefore, we asked if there are benefits to working with LLMs. To this end, we compared three ways of using LLMs (N=280): 1) free-form, 2) direct generation, and 3) a structured approach informed by a theory of reframing. We found that using LLMs does not help improve the quality of problem frames. In fact, it increases the competence gap between experienced and inexperienced designers. Also, inexperienced ones perceived lower agency when working with LLMs. We conclude that there is no benefit to using LLMs in problem reframing and discuss possible factors for this lack of effect.
Joon Gi Shin, Anna Polyanskaya, Andrés Lucero, Antti Oulasvirta
CHI2