Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Risk or Chance? Large Language Models and Reproducibility in HCI Research

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.15782 v3 pith:T6E66QNX submitted 2024-04-24 cs.HC

classification cs.HC
keywords reproducibilityresearchpracticesacrosschallengeslanguagelargelenses
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Reproducibility is a major concern across scientific fields. Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), in particular, is subject to diverse reproducibility challenges due to the wide range of research methodologies employed. In this article, we explore how the increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) across all user experience (UX) design and research activities impacts reproducibility in HCI. In particular, we review upcoming reproducibility challenges through the lenses of analogies from past to future (mis)practices like p-hacking and prompt-hacking, general bias, support in data analysis, documentation and education requirements, and possible pressure on the community. We discuss the risks and chances for each of these lenses with the expectation that a more comprehensive discussion will help shape best practices and contribute to valid and reproducible practices around using LLMs in HCI research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Impostor is Among Us: Can Large Language Models Capture the Complexity of Human Personas?

    cs.HC 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Participants distinguished human-written from GPT-4o-generated personas, rating AI personas higher on informativeness, positivity, consistency, and clarity but also higher on stereotypicality.

Pith tools