Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have transformed image captioning, shifting from concise captions to detailed descriptions. We introduce LOTUS, a leaderboard for evaluating detailed captions, addressing three main gaps in existing evaluations: lack of standardized criteria, bias-aware assessments, and user preference considerations. LOTUS comprehensively evaluates various aspects, including caption quality (e.g., alignment, descriptiveness), risks (\eg, hallucination), and societal biases (e.g., gender bias) while enabling preference-oriented evaluations by tailoring criteria to diverse user preferences. Our analysis of recent LVLMs reveals no single model excels across all criteria, while correlations emerge between caption detail and bias risks. Preference-oriented evaluations demonstrate that optimal model selection depends on user priorities.

From media platforms to chatbots, algorithms shape how people interact, learn, and discover information. Such interactions between users and an algorithm often unfold over multiple steps, during which strategic users can guide the algorithm to better align with their true interests by selectively engaging with content. However, users frequently exhibit inconsistent preferences: they may spend considerable time on content that offers little long-term value, inadvertently signaling that such content is desirable. Focusing on the user side, this raises a key question: what does it take for such users to align the algorithm with their true interests? To investigate these dynamics, we model the user's decision process as split between a rational system 2 that decides whether to engage and an impulsive system 1 that determines how long engagement lasts. We then study a multi-leader, single-follower extensive Stackelberg game, where users, specifically system 2, lead by committing to engagement strategies and the algorithm best-responds based on observed interactions. We define the burden of alignment as the minimum horizon over which users must optimize to effectively steer the algorithm. We show that a critical horizon exists: users who are sufficiently foresighted can achieve alignment, while those who are not are instead aligned to the algorithm's objective. This critical horizon can be long, imposing a substantial burden. However, even a small, costly signal (e.g., an extra click) can significantly reduce it. Overall, our framework explains how users with inconsistent preferences can align an engagement-driven algorithm with their interests in a Stackelberg equilibrium, highlighting both the challenges and potential remedies for achieving alignment.

Effective conversational agents like large language models (LLMs) must personalize their interactions to adapt to user preferences, personalities, and attributes across diverse domains like education and healthcare. Current methods like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), often prioritize helpfulness and safety but fall short in fostering truly empathetic, adaptive, and personalized dialogues. Existing personalization approaches typically rely on extensive user history, limiting their effectiveness for new or context-limited users. To address these limitations, we propose leveraging a user model to incorporate a curiosity-based intrinsic reward into multi-turn RLHF. This novel reward mechanism encourages the LLM agent to actively infer user traits by optimizing conversations to improve its user model's accuracy. Consequently, the agent delivers more personalized interactions by learning more about the user. We demonstrate our method's effectiveness in two distinct domains: significantly improving personalization performance in a conversational recommendation task, and personalizing conversations for different learning styles in an educational setting. We show improved generalization capabilities compared to traditional multi-turn RLHF, all while maintaining conversation quality. Our method offers a promising solution for creating more personalized, adaptive, and engaging conversational agents.

Robo-advisors (RAs) are cost-effective, bias-resistant alternatives to human financial advisors, yet adoption remains limited. While prior research has examined user interactions with RAs, less is known about how individuals interpret RA roles and integrate their advice into decision-making. To address this gap, this study employs a multiphase mixed methods design integrating a behavioral experiment (N = 334), thematic analysis, and follow-up quantitative testing. Findings suggest that people tend to rely on RAs, with reliance shaped by information about RA performance and the framing of advice as gains or losses. Thematic analysis reveals three RA roles in decision-making and four user types, each reflecting distinct patterns of advice integration. In addition, a 2 x 2 typology categorizes antecedents of acceptance into enablers and inhibitors at both the individual and algorithmic levels. By combining behavioral, interpretive, and confirmatory evidence, this study advances understanding of human-RA collaboration and provides actionable insights for designing more trustworthy and adaptive RA systems.

We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can generate effective, user-facing explanations from a mathematically interpretable recommendation model. The model is based on constrained matrix factorization, where user types are explicitly represented and predicted item scores share the same scale as observed ratings, making the model's internal representations and predicted scores directly interpretable. This structure is translated into natural language explanations using carefully designed LLM prompts. Many works in explainable AI rely on automatic evaluation metrics, which often fail to capture users' actual needs and perceptions. In contrast, we adopt a user-centered approach: we conduct a study with 326 participants who assessed the quality of the explanations across five key dimensions-transparency, effectiveness, persuasion, trust, and satisfaction-as well as the recommendations themselves. To evaluate how different explanation strategies are perceived, we generate multiple explanation types from the same underlying model, varying the input information provided to the LLM. Our analysis reveals that all explanation types are generally well received, with moderate statistical differences between strategies. User comments further underscore how participants react to each type of explanation, offering complementary insights beyond the quantitative results.

We study a sequential decision-making problem motivated by recent regulatory and technological shifts that limit access to individual user data in recommender systems (RSs), leaving only population-level preference information. This privacy-aware setting poses fundamental challenges in planning under uncertainty: Effective personalization requires exploration to infer user preferences, yet unsatisfactory recommendations risk immediate user churn. To address this, we introduce the Rec-APC model, in which an anonymous user is drawn from a known prior over latent user types (e.g., personas or clusters), and the decision-maker sequentially selects items to recommend. Feedback is binary -- positive responses refine the posterior via Bayesian updates, while negative responses result in the termination of the session. We prove that optimal policies converge to pure exploitation in finite time and propose a branch-and-bound algorithm to efficiently compute them. Experiments on synthetic and MovieLens data confirm rapid convergence and demonstrate that our method outperforms the POMDP solver SARSOP, particularly when the number of user types is large or comparable to the number of content categories. Our results highlight the applicability of this approach and inspire new ways to improve decision-making under the constraints imposed by aggregated preference data.

Mobile users are prone to experience beam failure due to beam drifting in millimeter wave (mmWave) communications. Sensing can help alleviate beam drifting with timely beam changes and low overhead since it does not need user feedback. This work studies the problem of optimizing sensing-aided communication by dynamically managing beams allocated to mobile users. A multi-beam scheme is introduced, which allocates multiple beams to the users that need an update on the angle of departure (AoD) estimates and a single beam to the users that have satisfied AoD estimation precision. A deep reinforcement learning (DRL) assisted method is developed to optimize the beam allocation policy, relying only upon the sensing echoes. For comparison, a heuristic AoD-based method using approximated Cramér-Rao lower bound (CRLB) for allocation is also presented. Both methods require neither user feedback nor prior state evolution information. Results show that the DRL-assisted method achieves a considerable gain in throughput than the conventional beam sweeping method and the AoD-based method, and it is robust to different user speeds.

Given the importance of these recommendation algorithms, it makes sense to try to design optimal ones. A basic criterion for optimality, that captures the first-order experience of users in a recommendation system, is to maximize the proportion of recommendations that are liked, 1 similar to [11, 23] The goal of this paper is to gain insight into the design of recommendation algorithms by finding a statistically optimal algorithm within the context of a natural model for recommendation systems. One of our findings is that the best way to obtain information about users and items in order to make good recommendations depends on the time horizon and its relation to various system parameters including the number of users, the diversity of users, and richness of the items; there are a number of operating regimes depending on these parameters. It goes without saying that the nature of any insight obtained is intertwined with the choice of model. We use the same model as [11], closely related to those studied in [10, 12]. The model is different from those in other papers on the topic; we now motivate its key features.

Recent advancements in dialogue policy planning have emphasized optimizing system agent policies to achieve predefined goals, focusing on strategy design, trajectory acquisition, and efficient training paradigms. However, these approaches often overlook the critical role of user characteristics, which are essential in real-world scenarios like conversational search and recommendation, where interactions must adapt to individual user traits such as personality, preferences, and goals. To address this gap, we first conduct a comprehensive study utilizing task-specific user personas to systematically assess dialogue policy planning under diverse user behaviors. By leveraging realistic user profiles for different tasks, our study reveals significant limitations in existing approaches, highlighting the need for user-tailored dialogue policy planning. Building on this foundation, we present the User-Tailored Dialogue Policy Planning (UDP) framework, which incorporates an Intrinsic User World Model to model user traits and feedback. UDP operates in three stages: (1) User Persona Portraying, using a diffusion model to dynamically infer user profiles; (2) User Feedback Anticipating, leveraging a Brownian Bridge-inspired anticipator to predict user reactions; and (3) User-Tailored Policy Planning, integrating these insights to optimize response strategies. To ensure robust performance, we further propose an active learning approach that prioritizes challenging user personas during training. Comprehensive experiments on benchmarks, including collaborative and non-collaborative settings, demonstrate the effectiveness of UDP in learning user-specific dialogue strategies. Results validate the protocol's utility and highlight UDP's robustness, adaptability, and potential to advance user-centric dialogue systems.

This tension in assumptions is readily apparent in standard human-AI alignment methods--such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) [6, 7, 8] and direct preference optimization (DPO) [9]--which assume a single reward function captures the interests of the entire population. We examine the limits of the preference homogeneity assumption when individuals belong to user types, each characterized by a specific reward function. Recent work has shown that in this setting, the homogeneity assumption can lead to unexpected behavior [10, 11, 12]. One challenge is that, under this assumption, learning from human preferences becomes unrealizable, as a single reward function cannot capture the complexity of population preferences with multiple reward functions [13, 14]. Both RLHF and DPO rely on maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) to optimize the reward or policy. Unrealizability implies their likelihood functions cannot fully represent the underlying preference data distribution, resulting in a nontrivial optimal MLE solution. From another perspective, learning a universal reward or policy from a heterogeneous population inherently involves an aggregation of diverse interests, and this aggregation is nontrivial. In the quest for a single policy that accommodates a heterogeneous population with multiple user types, we show that the only universal reward yielding a well-defined alignment problem is an affine Equal contribution Work done while visiting Harvard Equal advising 1 arXiv:2502.16320v1