Each year millions of people seek help for their legal problems by calling a legal aid program hotline, walking into a legal aid office, or using a lawyer referral service. The first step to match them to the right help is to identify the legal problem the applicant is experiencing. Misdirection has consequences. Applicants may miss a deadline, experience physical abuse, lose housing or lose custody of children while waiting to connect to the right legal help. We introduce and evaluate the FETCH classifier for legal issue classification and describe two methods for improving accuracy: a hybrid LLM/ML ensemble classification method, and the automatic generation of follow-up questions to enrich the initial problem narrative. We employ a novel data set of 419 real-world queries to a nonprofit lawyer referral service. Ultimately, we show classification accuracy (hits@2) of 97.37\% using a mix of inexpensive models, exceeding the performance of the current state-of-the-art GPT-5 model. Our approach shows promise in significantly reducing the cost of guiding users of the legal system to the right resource for their problem while achieving high accuracy.

Behavioral health conditions, which include mental health and substance use disorders, are the leading disease burden in the United States. Peer-run behavioral health organizations (PROs) critically assist individuals facing these conditions by combining mental health services with assistance for needs such as income, employment, and housing. However, limited funds and staffing make it difficult for PROs to address all service user needs. To assist peer providers at PROs with their day-to-day tasks, we introduce PeerCoPilot, a large language model (LLM)-powered assistant that helps peer providers create wellness plans, construct step-by-step goals, and locate organizational resources to support these goals. PeerCoPilot ensures information reliability through a retrieval-augmented generation pipeline backed by a large database of over 1,300 vetted resources. We conducted human evaluations with 15 peer providers and 6 service users and found that over 90% of users supported using PeerCoPilot. Moreover, we demonstrated that PeerCoPilot provides more reliable and specific information than a baseline LLM. PeerCoPilot is now used by a group of 5-10 peer providers at CSPNJ, a large behavioral health organization serving over 10,000 service users, and we are actively expanding PeerCoPilot's use.

Food logging, both self-directed and prescribed, plays a critical role in uncovering correlations between diet, medical, fitness, and health outcomes. Through conversations with nutritional experts and individuals who practice dietary tracking, we find current logging methods, such as handwritten and app-based journaling, are inflexible and result in low adherence and potentially inaccurate nutritional summaries. These findings, corroborated by prior literature, emphasize the urgent need for improved food logging methods. In response, we propose SnappyMeal, an AI-powered dietary tracking system that leverages multimodal inputs to enable users to more flexibly log their food intake. SnappyMeal introduces goal-dependent follow-up questions to intelligently seek missing context from the user and information retrieval from user grocery receipts and nutritional databases to improve accuracy. We evaluate SnappyMeal through publicly available nutrition benchmarks and a multi-user, 3-week, in-the-wild deployment capturing over 500 logged food instances. Users strongly praised the multiple available input methods and reported a strong perceived accuracy. These insights suggest that multimodal AI systems can be leveraged to significantly improve dietary tracking flexibility and context-awareness, laying the groundwork for a new class of intelligent self-tracking applications.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies. Study I recruits human judges with either mainstream or skeptical beliefs who evaluate claims through two protocols: debate (interaction with two AI advisors arguing opposing sides) or consultancy (interaction with a single AI advisor). Study II uses AI judges with and without human-like personas to evaluate the same protocols. In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy by 4-10% across COVID-19 and climate change claims. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (up to +15.2% accuracy on COVID-19 claims), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.

The accessibility of legal information remains a constant challenge, particularly for laypersons seeking to understand and apply complex institutional texts. While the European Union provides open access to legislation, parliamentary responses, and regulatory documents, these resources can be challenging for laypeople to explore. In this paper, we introduce EUDial, a proactive multi-turn dialogue dataset constructed from 204 blogs curated by the Citizens' Enquiries Unit (AskEP) of the European Parliamentary Research Service. EUDial contains 880 dialogue turns (averaging 4.3 turns per dialogue), where each dialogue includes initial questions, structured answers, and follow-up questions. Beyond dataset construction, we propose the LexGuide framework that leverages retrieval-augmented generation with hierarchical topic organization to structure dialogue progression, ensuring both comprehensive coverage of legal aspects and coherence across conversational turns. The results demonstrate that proactive, structured navigation closes the gap between the availability of legal information and citizen comprehension, establishing EUDial and LexGuide as practical resources for advancing proactive legal dialogue systems.

We developed a task-oriented dialogue framework structured as a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) of medical questions. The system integrates: (1) a systematic pipeline for transforming medical algorithms and guidelines into a clinical question corpus; (2) a cold-start mechanism based on hierarchical clustering to generate efficient initial questioning without prior patient information; (3) an expand-and-prune mechanism enabling adaptive branching and backtracking based on patient responses; (4) a termination logic to ensure interviews end once sufficient information is gathered; and (5) automated synthesis of doctor-friendly structured reports aligned with clinical workflows. Human-computer interaction principles guided the design of both the patient and physician applications. Preliminary evaluation involved five physicians using standardized instruments: NASA-TLX (cognitive workload), the System Usability Scale (SUS), and the Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction (QUIS). The patient application achieved low workload scores (NASA-TLX = 15.6), high usability (SUS = 86), and strong satisfaction (QUIS = 8.1/9), with particularly high ratings for ease of learning and interface design. The physician application yielded moderate workload (NASA-TLX = 26) and excellent usability (SUS = 88.5), with satisfaction scores of 8.3/9. Both applications demonstrated effective integration into clinical workflows, reducing cognitive demand and supporting efficient report generation. Limitations included occasional system latency and a small, non-diverse evaluation sample.

(Figure 2).

As large language models (LLMs) become ubiquitous in workplace tools and decision-making processes, ensuring explainability and fostering user trust are critical. Although advancements in LLM engineering continue, human-centered design is still catching up, particularly when it comes to embedding transparency and trust into AI interfaces. This study evaluates user experiences with two distinct AI interfaces - node-tree interfaces and chatbot interfaces - to assess their performance in exploratory, follow-up inquiry, decision-making, and problem-solving tasks. Our design-driven approach introduces a node-tree interface that visually structures AI-generated responses into hierarchically organized, interactive nodes, allowing users to navigate, refine, and follow up on complex information. In a comparative study with n=20 business users, we observed that while the chatbot interface effectively supports linear, step-by-step queries, it is the node-tree interface that enhances brainstorming. Quantitative and qualitative findings indicate that node-tree interfaces not only improve task performance and decision-making support but also promote higher levels of user trust by preserving context. Our findings suggest that adaptive AI interfaces capable of switching between structured visualizations and conversational formats based on task requirements can significantly enhance transparency and user confidence in AI-powered systems. This work contributes actionable insights to the fields of human-robot interaction and AI design, particularly for enterprise applications where trust-building is critical for teams.

As students increasingly adopt large language models (LLMs) as learning aids, it is crucial to build models that are adept at handling the nuances of tutoring: they need to identify the core needs of students, be adaptive, provide personalized guidance, and be accurate. To this end, we introduce TutorBench, a dataset and evaluation benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the core tutoring skills of LLMs. The dataset comprises 1,490 samples curated by human experts, focused on high-school and AP-level curricula. The samples are drawn from three common tutoring tasks: (i) generating adaptive explanations tailored to a student's confusion, (ii) providing actionable feedback on a student's work, and (iii) promoting active learning through effective hint generation. To account for the inherent complexity of tutoring, samples are accompanied by sample-specific rubrics which are used to judge model responses during evaluation. TutorBench uses a reliable and fine-grained automatic evaluation method that uses an LLM-judge and the sample-specific rubrics. We evaluate 16 frontier LLMs on TutorBench and present a detailed analysis of their performance and behavior. Our results show that none of the frontier LLMs achieve a score of greater than $56\%$, showing a large room for improvement. We find that LLMs fall short in exhibiting the full range of tutoring skills needed to guide, diagnose, and support students effectively, with all the frontier models achieving less than a $60\%$ pass rate on rubric criteria related to these skills. We also find that different model families exhibit varied strengths and limitations: the Claude models outperform others in supporting active learning, while they lag behind in the other two use cases. By releasing TutorBench, we provide a comprehensive and unsaturated benchmark to guide the development of the next-generation of AI tutors.

Every individual carries a unique and personal life story shaped by their memories and experiences. However, these memories are often scattered and difficult to organize into a coherent narrative, a challenge that defines the task of autobiography writing. Existing conversational writing assistants tend to rely on generic user interactions and pre-defined guidelines, making it difficult for these systems to capture personal memories and develop a complete biography over time. We introduce StorySage, a user-driven software system designed to meet the needs of a diverse group of users that supports a flexible conversation and a structured approach to autobiography writing. Powered by a multi-agent framework composed of an Interviewer, Session Scribe, Planner, Section Writer, and Session Coordinator, our system iteratively collects user memories, updates their autobiography, and plans for future conversations. In experimental simulations, StorySage demonstrates its ability to navigate multiple sessions and capture user memories across many conversations. User studies (N=28) highlight how StorySage maintains improved conversational flow, narrative completeness, and higher user satisfaction when compared to a baseline. In summary, StorySage contributes both a novel architecture for autobiography writing and insights into how multi-agent systems can enhance human-AI creative partnerships.