On User-Generated Content (UGC) platforms, recommendation algorithms significantly impact creators' motivation to produce content as they compete for

On User-Generated Content (UGC) platforms, recommendation algorithms significantly impact creators' motivation to produce content as they compete for algorithmically allocated user traffic. This phenomenon subtly shapes the volume and diversity of the content pool, which is crucial for the platform's sustainability. In this work, we demonstrate, both theoretically and empirically, that a purely relevance-driven policy with low exploration strength boosts short-term user satisfaction but undermines the long-term richness of the content pool. In contrast, a more aggressive exploration policy may slightly compromise user satisfaction but promote higher content creation volume. Our findings reveal a fundamental trade-off between immediate user satisfaction and overall content production on UGC platforms. Building on this finding, we propose an efficient optimization method to identify the optimal exploration strength, balancing user and creator engagement. Our model can serve as a pre-deployment audit tool for recommendation algorithms on UGC platforms, helping to align their immediate objectives with sustainable, long-term goals.

Explainable AI (XAI) presents useful tools to facilitate transparency and trustworthiness in machine learning systems. However, current evaluations of system explainability often rely heavily on subjective user surveys, which may not adequately capture the effectiveness of explanations. This paper critiques the overreliance on user satisfaction metrics and explores whether these can differentiate between meaningful (actionable) and vacuous (placebic) explanations. In experiments involving optimal Social Security filing age selection tasks, participants used one of three protocols: no explanations, placebic explanations, and actionable explanations. Participants who received actionable explanations significantly outperformed the other groups in objective measures of their mental model, but users rated placebic and actionable explanations as equally satisfying. This suggests that subjective surveys alone fail to capture whether explanations truly support users in building useful domain understanding. We propose that future evaluations of agent explanation capabilities should integrate objective task performance metrics alongside subjective assessments to more accurately measure explanation quality.

The growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in instruction-following and context-understanding lead to the era of agents with numerous applications. Among these, task planning agents have become especially prominent in realistic scenarios involving complex internal pipelines, such as context understanding, tool management, and response generation. However, existing benchmarks predominantly evaluate agent performance based on task completion as a proxy for overall effectiveness. We hypothesize that merely improving task completion is misaligned with maximizing user satisfaction, as users interact with the entire agentic process and not only the end result. To address this gap, we propose AURA, an Agent-User inteRaction Assessment framework that conceptualizes the behavioral stages of interactive task planning agents. AURA offers a comprehensive assessment of agent through a set of atomic LLM evaluation criteria, allowing researchers and practitioners to diagnose specific strengths and weaknesses within the agent's decision-making pipeline. Our analyses show that agents excel in different behavioral stages, with user satisfaction shaped by both outcomes and intermediate behaviors. We also highlight future directions, including systems that leverage multiple agents and the limitations of user simulators in task planning.

Socially interactive agents (SIAs) are being used in various scenarios and are nearing productive deployment. Evaluating user satisfaction with SIAs' performance is a key factor in designing the interaction between the user and SIA. Currently, subjective user satisfaction is primarily assessed manually through questionnaires or indirectly via system metrics. This study examines the automatic classification of user satisfaction through analysis of social signals, aiming to enhance both manual and autonomous evaluation methods for SIAs. During a field trial at the Deutsches Museum Bonn, a Furhat Robotics head was employed as a service and information hub, collecting an "in-the-wild" dataset. This dataset comprises 46 single-user interactions, including questionnaire responses and video data. Our method focuses on automatically classifying user satisfaction based on time series classification. We use time series of social signal metrics derived from the body pose, time series of facial expressions, and physical distance. This study compares three feature engineering approaches on different machine learning models. The results confirm the method's effectiveness in reliably identifying interactions with low user satisfaction without the need for manually annotated datasets. This approach offers significant potential for enhancing SIA performance and user experience through automated feedback mechanisms.

Organizations are rapidly adopting Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform their operations, yet they lack clear guidance on key decisions for adoption and implementation. While LLMs offer powerful capabilities in content generation, assisted coding, and process automation, businesses face critical challenges in data security, LLM solution development approach, infrastructure requirements, and deployment strategies. Healthcare providers must protect patient data while leveraging LLMs for medical analysis, financial institutions need to balance automated customer service with regulatory compliance, and software companies seek to enhance development productivity while maintaining code security. This article presents a systematic six-step decision framework for LLM adoption, helping organizations navigate from initial application selection to final deployment. Based on extensive interviews and analysis of successful and failed implementations, our framework provides practical guidance for business leaders to align technological capabilities with business objectives. Through key decision points and real-world examples from both B2B and B2C contexts, organizations can make informed decisions about LLM adoption while ensuring secure and efficient integration across various use cases, from customer service automation to content creation and advanced analytics.

This paper revisits fairness-aware interactive recommendation (e.g., TikTok, KuaiShou) by introducing a novel control knob, i.e., the lifecycle of items. We make threefold contributions. First, we conduct a comprehensive empirical analysis and uncover that item lifecycles in short-video platforms follow a compressed three-phase pattern, i.e., rapid growth, transient stability, and sharp decay, which significantly deviates from the classical four-stage model (introduction, growth, maturity, decline). Second, we introduce LHRL, a lifecycle-aware hierarchical reinforcement learning framework that dynamically harmonizes fairness and accuracy by leveraging phase-specific exposure dynamics. LHRL consists of two key components: (1) PhaseFormer, a lightweight encoder combining STL decomposition and attention mechanisms for robust phase detection; (2) a two-level HRL agent, where the high-level policy imposes phase-aware fairness constraints, and the low-level policy optimizes immediate user engagement. This decoupled optimization allows for effective reconciliation between long-term equity and short-term utility. Third, experiments on multiple real-world interactive recommendation datasets demonstrate that LHRL significantly improves both fairness and user engagement. Furthermore, the integration of lifecycle-aware rewards into existing RL-based models consistently yields performance gains, highlighting the generalizability and practical value of our approach.

The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) for multi-turn conversations typically relies on reward signals derived from the content of the text. This approach, however, overlooks a rich, complementary source of signal: the dynamics of the interaction itself. This paper introduces TRACE (Trajectory-based Reward for Agent Collaboration Estimation), a novel reward signal derived from the geometric properties of a dialogue's embedding trajectory--a concept we term 'conversational geometry'. Our central finding is that a reward model trained only on these structural signals achieves a pairwise accuracy (68.20%) comparable to a powerful LLM baseline that analyzes the full transcript (70.04%). Furthermore, a hybrid model combining interaction dynamics with textual analysis achieves the highest performance (80.17%), demonstrating their complementary nature. This work provides strong evidence that for interactive settings, how an agent communicates is as powerful a predictor of success as what it says, offering a new, privacy-preserving framework that not only aligns agents but also serves as a diagnostic tool for understanding the distinct interaction patterns that drive successful collaboration.

Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to create transparency in modern AI models by offering explanations of the models to human users. There are many ways in which researchers have attempted to evaluate the quality of these XAI models, such as user studies or proposed objective metrics like "fidelity". However, these current XAI evaluation techniques are ad hoc at best and not generalizable. Thus, most studies done within this field conduct simple user surveys to analyze the difference between no explanations and those generated by their proposed solution. We do not find this to provide adequate evidence that the explanations generated are of good quality since we believe any kind of explanation will be "better" in most metrics when compared to none at all. Thus, our study looks to highlight this pitfall: most explanations, regardless of quality or correctness, will increase user satisfaction. We also propose that emphasis should be placed on actionable explanations. We demonstrate the validity of both of our claims using an agent assistant to teach chess concepts to users. The results of this chapter will act as a call to action in the field of XAI for more comprehensive evaluation techniques for future research in order to prove explanation quality beyond user satisfaction. Additionally, we present an analysis of the scenarios in which placebic or actionable explanations would be most useful.

LLM-powered agents are both a promising new technology and a source of complexity, where choices about models, tools, and prompting can affect their usefulness. While numerous benchmarks measure agent accuracy across domains, they mostly assume full automation, failing to represent the collaborative nature of real-world use cases. In this paper, we make two major steps towards the rigorous assessment of human-agent interactions. First, we propose PULSE, a framework for more efficient human-centric evaluation of agent designs, which comprises collecting user feedback, training an ML model to predict user satisfaction, and computing results by combining human satisfaction ratings with model-generated pseudo-labels. Second, we deploy the framework on a large-scale web platform built around the open-source software agent OpenHands, collecting in-the-wild usage data across over 15k users. We conduct case studies around how three agent design decisions -- choice of LLM backbone, planning strategy, and memory mechanisms -- impact developer satisfaction rates, yielding practical insights for software agent design. We also show how our framework can lead to more robust conclusions about agent design, reducing confidence intervals by 40% compared to a standard A/B test. Finally, we find substantial discrepancies between in-the-wild results and benchmark performance (e.g., the anti-correlation between results comparing claude-sonnet-4 and gpt-5), underscoring the limitations of benchmark-driven evaluation. Our findings provide guidance for evaluations of LLM agents with humans and identify opportunities for better agent designs.