Towards interactive evaluations for interaction harms in human-AI systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Current AI evaluation methods, which rely on static, model-only tests, fail to account for harms that emerge through sustained human-AI interaction. As AI systems proliferate and are increasingly integrated into real-world applications, this disconnect between evaluation approaches and actual usage becomes more significant. In this paper, we propose a shift towards evaluation based on textitinteractional ethics, which focuses on textitinteraction harms - issues like inappropriate parasocial relationships, social manipulation, and cognitive overreliance that develop over time through repeated interaction, rather than through isolated outputs. First, we discuss the limitations of current evaluation methods, which (1) are static, (2) assume a universal user experience, and (3) have limited construct validity. Drawing on research from human-computer interaction, natural language processing, and the social sciences, we present practical principles for designing interactive evaluations. These include ecologically valid interaction scenarios, human impact metrics, and diverse human participation approaches. Finally, we explore implementation challenges and open research questions for researchers, practitioners, and regulators aiming to integrate interactive evaluations into AI governance frameworks. This work lays the groundwork for developing more effective evaluation methods that better capture the complex dynamics between humans and AI systems.
Key facts. Cited by 29 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 May 2024.
Builds on
30 of 68 references.
References · 30
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
- 2024WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wildcited by 629
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
- 2022ToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detectioncited by 422
- 2021AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmarkcited by 349
- 2023Embers of Autoregression: Understanding Large Language Models Through the Problem They are Trained to Solvecited by 178
- 2023Beyond Memorization: Violating Privacy Via Inference with Large Language Modelscited by 175
- 2023Sociotechnical Safety Evaluation of Generative AI Systemscited by 157
- 2024Large language models that replace human participants can harmfully misportray and flatten identity groupscited by 144
18 more
- 2022Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reductioncited by 138
- 2024Evaluating Frontier Models for Dangerous Capabilitiescited by 128
- 2022Evaluating Human-Language Model Interactioncited by 92
- 2022The Fallacy of AI Functionalitycited by 88
- 2021On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLPcited by 81
- 2024SafetyPrompts: a Systematic Review of Open Datasets for Evaluating and Improving Large Language Model Safetycited by 77
- 2023Evaluating Language Models for Mathematics through Interactionscited by 70
- 2023"It's a Fair Game", or Is It? Examining How Users Navigate Disclosure Risks and Benefits When Using LLM-Based Conversational Agentscited by 60
- 2023Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gapcited by 56
- 2022Designing for Responsible Trust in AI Systems: A Communication Perspectivecited by 48
- 2023The Shifted and The Overlooked: A Task-oriented Investigation of User-GPT Interactionscited by 45
- 2024A Taxonomy for Human-LLM Interaction Modes: An Initial Explorationcited by 38
- 2024The illusion of artificial inclusioncited by 34
- 2023The System Model and the User Model: Exploring AI Dashboard Designcited by 12
- 2024Characterizing and modeling harms from interactions with design patterns in AI interfacescited by 11
- 2024Should agentic conversational AI change how we think about ethics? Characterising an interactional ethics centred on respectcited by 8
- 2023Human participants in AI research: Ethics and transparency in practicecited by 6
- 2020Common Metrics to Benchmark Human-Machine Teams (HMT): A Reviewcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 6; 2026: 18.
29 papers.
Sort:
By area:
- 2025OpenAI's Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systemscited by 28
- 2024LearnLM: Improving Gemini for Learningcited by 25
- 2024AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testingcited by 21
- 2026What Counts as AI Sycophancy? A Taxonomy and Expert Survey of a Fragmented Constructcited by 16
- 2025VeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failurescited by 14
- 2025Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AIcited by 12
- 2024Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language modelscited by 11
- 2024KidLM: Advancing Language Models for Children -- Early Insights and Future Directionscited by 8
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technologycited by 8
- 2025AIReg-Bench: Benchmarking Language Models That Assess AI Regulation Compliancecited by 6
- 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agentscited by 6
- 2024Declare and Justify: Explicit assumptions in AI evaluations are necessary for effective regulationcited by 4
17 more
- 2026Different Demographic Cues Yield Inconsistent Conclusions About LLM Personalization and Biascited by 4
- 2026Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Upliftcited by 3
- 2026Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Sciencecited by 3
- 2025ArGen: Auto-Regulation of Generative AI via GRPO and Policy-as-Codecited by 2
- 2026When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 2
- 2026Reflections and New Directions for Human-Centered Large Language Modelscited by 2
- 2025What Makes an Evaluation Useful? Common Pitfalls and Best Practicescited by 1
- 2026Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026Optimising for Flourishing: Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing as Success Criteria for Artificial Intelligence and Post-AGI Economic Systemscited by 1
- 2026KnowSim: Evaluating Information Calibration in LLM Assistants with User Simulators that Learncited by 1
- 2026RCTs for Frontier AI Governance: Methodological Challenges and Solutions for Human Uplift Studiescited by 0
- 2026Real-World AI Evaluation: How FRAME Generates Systematic Evidence to Resolve the Decision-Maker's Dilemmacited by 0
- 2026Evaluating Epistemic Guardrails in AI Reading Assistants: A Behavioral Audit of a Minimal Prototypecited by 0
- 2026Beyond Third-Person Audits: Situated Interaction Auditing for User-Centered LLM Bias Researchcited by 0
- 2026Design Theater: Evaluating the Gap Between User-Facing Design Reasoning and Implementation in Generative UI Toolscited by 0
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026CuBEs: Culturally-Situated Behavioral Evaluations and the Limitations of Culture-Blind LLM Judgescited by 0
- 2026CuBEs: Culturally-Situated Behavioral Evaluations and the Limitations of Culture-Blind LLM Judges2 Oct 2026
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI28 Aug 2026
- 2026KnowSim: Evaluating Information Calibration in LLM Assistants with User Simulators that Learn17 Aug 2026
- 2026Optimising for Flourishing: Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing as Success Criteria for Artificial Intelligence and Post-AGI Economic Systems31 Jul 2026
- 2026Design Theater: Evaluating the Gap Between User-Facing Design Reasoning and Implementation in Generative UI Tools24 Jul 2026
- 2026Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agents18 Jun 2026
- 2026Beyond Third-Person Audits: Situated Interaction Auditing for User-Centered LLM Bias Research10 Jun 2026
- 2026What Counts as AI Sycophancy? A Taxonomy and Expert Survey of a Fragmented Construct20 May 2026
- 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agents18 May 2026
- 2026Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science18 May 2026
- 2026Reflections and New Directions for Human-Centered Large Language Models7 May 2026
- 2026Evaluating Epistemic Guardrails in AI Reading Assistants: A Behavioral Audit of a Minimal Prototype30 Apr 2026
17 more
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology31 Mar 2026
- 2026RCTs for Frontier AI Governance: Methodological Challenges and Solutions for Human Uplift Studies11 Mar 2026
- 2026Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Uplift6 Mar 2026
- 2026Real-World AI Evaluation: How FRAME Generates Systematic Evidence to Resolve the Decision-Maker's Dilemma28 Feb 2026
- 2026When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Making3 Feb 2026
- 2026Different Demographic Cues Yield Inconsistent Conclusions About LLM Personalization and Bias26 Jan 2026
- 2025AIReg-Bench: Benchmarking Language Models That Assess AI Regulation Compliance1 Oct 2025
- 2025Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AI8 Sep 2025
- 2025ArGen: Auto-Regulation of Generative AI via GRPO and Policy-as-Code6 Sep 2025
- 2025What Makes an Evaluation Useful? Common Pitfalls and Best Practices30 Mar 2025
- 2025VeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failures16 Mar 2025
- 2025OpenAI's Approach to External Red Teaming for AI Models and Systems24 Jan 2025
- 2024LearnLM: Improving Gemini for Learning21 Dec 2024
- 2024Declare and Justify: Explicit assumptions in AI evaluations are necessary for effective regulation19 Nov 2024
- 2024KidLM: Advancing Language Models for Children -- Early Insights and Future Directions4 Oct 2024
- 2024AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testing4 Oct 2024
- 2024Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language models20 Jun 2024
- 2024AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testingcited by 21
- 2025VeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failurescited by 14
- 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agentscited by 6
- 2026Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agentscited by 1
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AIcited by 0
- 2026When Agents Act Unwatched: The Reduced-Supervision Paradox in Agentic AI28 Aug 2026
- 2026Measuring Biological Capabilities and Risks of AI Agents18 Jun 2026
- 2026ProcCtrlBench: Evaluating Process-Level Defects and Control Preservation in LLM Coding Agents18 May 2026
- 2025VeriLA: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for Interpretable Verification of LLM Agent Failures16 Mar 2025
- 2024AutoPenBench: Benchmarking Generative Agents for Penetration Testing4 Oct 2024
- 2024LearnLM: Improving Gemini for Learningcited by 25
- 2026What Counts as AI Sycophancy? A Taxonomy and Expert Survey of a Fragmented Constructcited by 16
- 2025Measuring and mitigating overreliance to build human-compatible AIcited by 12
- 2024Evidence of a log scaling law for political persuasion with large language modelscited by 11
- 2024KidLM: Advancing Language Models for Children -- Early Insights and Future Directionscited by 8
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technologycited by 8
- 2025AIReg-Bench: Benchmarking Language Models That Assess AI Regulation Compliancecited by 6
- 2024Declare and Justify: Explicit assumptions in AI evaluations are necessary for effective regulationcited by 4
- 2026Different Demographic Cues Yield Inconsistent Conclusions About LLM Personalization and Biascited by 4
- 2026Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Upliftcited by 3
- 2026Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Sciencecited by 3
- 2026When AI Persuades: Adversarial Explanation Attacks on Human Trust in AI-Assisted Decision Makingcited by 2
12 most cited of 21 All 21 (JSON)
- 2026KnowSim: Evaluating Information Calibration in LLM Assistants with User Simulators that Learn17 Aug 2026
- 2026Optimising for Flourishing: Flourishing Metrics and Return on Flourishing as Success Criteria for Artificial Intelligence and Post-AGI Economic Systems31 Jul 2026
- 2026Design Theater: Evaluating the Gap Between User-Facing Design Reasoning and Implementation in Generative UI Tools24 Jul 2026
- 2026Beyond Third-Person Audits: Situated Interaction Auditing for User-Centered LLM Bias Research10 Jun 2026
- 2026What Counts as AI Sycophancy? A Taxonomy and Expert Survey of a Fragmented Construct20 May 2026
- 2026Interactive Evaluation Requires a Design Science18 May 2026
- 2026Reflections and New Directions for Human-Centered Large Language Models7 May 2026
- 2026Evaluating Epistemic Guardrails in AI Reading Assistants: A Behavioral Audit of a Minimal Prototype30 Apr 2026
- 2026Computational Hermeneutics: Evaluating generative AI as a cultural technology31 Mar 2026
- 2026RCTs for Frontier AI Governance: Methodological Challenges and Solutions for Human Uplift Studies11 Mar 2026
- 2026Evaluating Human-AI Safety: A Framework for Measuring Harmful Capability Uplift6 Mar 2026
- 2026Real-World AI Evaluation: How FRAME Generates Systematic Evidence to Resolve the Decision-Maker's Dilemma28 Feb 2026
12 newest of 21 All 21 (JSON)