Publications

Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly used for planning in orchestrated multi-agent systems. However, existing LLM-based approaches often fall short of human expectations and, critically, lack effective mechanisms for users to inspect, understand, and control their behaviors. These limitations call for enhanced transparency, controllability, and human oversight. To address this, we introduce AIPOM, a system supporting human-in-the-loop planning through conversational and graph-based interfaces. AIPOM enables users to transparently inspect, refine, and collaboratively guide LLM-generated plans, significantly enhancing user control and trust in multi-agent workflows.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capability in language generation and understanding, but their tendency to hallucinate and produce factually incorrect information remains a key limitation. To verify LLM-generated contents and claims from other sources, traditional verification approaches often rely on holistic models that assign a single factuality label to complex claims, potentially obscuring nuanced errors. In this paper, we advocate for a shift toward fine-grained verification, where complex claims are broken down into smaller sub-claims for individual verification, allowing for more precise identification of inaccuracies, improved transparency, and reduced ambiguity in evidence retrieval. However, generating sub-claims poses challenges, such as maintaining context and ensuring semantic equivalence with respect to the original claim. We introduce FactLens, a benchmark for evaluating fine-grained fact verification, with metrics and automated evaluators of sub-claim quality. The benchmark data is manually curated to ensure high-quality ground truth. Our results show alignment between automated FactLens evaluators and human judgments, and we discuss the impact of sub-claim characteristics on the overall verification performance.

AI practitioners increasingly use large language model (LLM) agents in compound AI systems to solve complex reasoning tasks, these agent executions often fail to meet human standards, leading to errors that compromise the system’s overall performance. Addressing these failures through human intervention is challenging due to the agents’ opaque reasoning processes, misalignment with human expectations, the complexity of agent dependencies, and the high cost of manual inspection. This paper thus introduces a human-centered evaluation framework for Verifying LLM Agent failures (VeriLA), which systematically assesses agent failures to reduce human effort and make these agent failures interpretable to humans. The framework first defines clear expectations of each agent by curating human-designed agent criteria. Then, it develops a human-aligned agent verifier module, trained with human gold standards, to assess each agent’s execution output. This approach enables granular evaluation of each agent’s performance by revealing failures from a human standard, offering clear guidelines for revision, and reducing human cognitive load. Our case study results show that VeriLA is both interpretable and efficient in helping practitioners interact more effectively with the system. By upholding accountability in human-agent collaboration, VeriLA paves the way for more trustworthy and human-aligned compound AI systems.