Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Hallie Xu
dblp:420/0564
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
0009-0001-0158-5069ORCID · 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 |
Human-AI interaction · 100% | |
| Artificial intelligence
1 paper |
Language models and text generation · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Human-AI interaction
large language model interaction |
1.0 | 1 | 2026 | Just-In-Time Objectives: A General Approach for Specialized AI Interactions · CHI 2026 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
passive behavior observation · 2.0objective induction · 2.0generation and evaluation · 2.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Just-In-Time Objectives: A General Approach for Specialized AI InteractionsabstractLarge language models promise a broad set of functions, but when not given a specific objective, they default to generic results. We demonstrate that inferring the user’s in-the-moment objective, then rapidly optimizing for that singular objective, enables LLMs to produce specialized tools, interfaces, and responses. Our work introduces just-in-time objectives, which model a user’s goals to specialize LLM systems on the fly. We contribute an architecture for automatically inducing such objectives by passively observing user behavior, then steering downstream AI systems through generation and evaluation against this objective. Inducing just-in-time objectives (e.g., “Clarify the abstract’s research contribution”) enables automatic generation of tools, e.g., those that critique a draft based on relevant HCI methodologies, anticipate related researchers’ reactions, or surface ambiguous terminology. In a series of experiments on participants’ own tasks, JIT objectives enable LLM outputs that achieve 66–86% win rates over typical LLMs. In-person use sessions confirm that JIT objectives produce specialized tools that are unique to each participant and are rated as significantly higher quality than a standard LLM chat tool. Michelle S. Lam, Omar Shaikh, Hallie Xu, Alice Guo, Diyi Yang, Jeffrey Heer, James A. Landay, Michael S. Bernstein |
CHI | 3 |