Table of Links Abstract and 1 Introduction Abstract and 1 Introduction 2 Survey with Industry Professionals 2 Survey with Industry Professionals 3 RQ1: Real-World use cases that necessitate output constraints 3 RQ1: Real-World use cases that necessitate output constraints 4 RQ2: Benefits of Applying Constraints to LLM Outputs and 4.1 Increasing Prompt-based development Efficiency 4 RQ2: Benefits of Applying Constraints to LLM Outputs and 4.1 Increasing Prompt-based development Efficiency 4.2 Integrating with Downstream Processes and Workflows 4.2 Integrating with Downstream Processes and Workflows 4.3 Satisfying UI and Product Requirements and 4.4 Improving User Experience, Trust, and Adoption 4.3 Satisfying UI and Product Requirements and 4.4 Improving User Experience, Trust, and Adoption 5 How to Articulate output constraints to LLMS and 5.1 The case for GUI: A Quick, Reliable, and Flexible Way of Prototyping Constraints 5 How to Articulate output constraints to LLMS and 5.1 The case for GUI: A Quick, Reliable, and Flexible Way of Prototyping Constraints 5.2 The Case for NL: More Intuitive and Expressive for Complex Constraints 5.2 The Case for NL: More Intuitive and Expressive for Complex Constraints 6 The Constraint maker Tool and 6.1 Iterative Design and User Feedback 6 The Constraint maker Tool and 6.1 Iterative Design and User Feedback 7 Conclusion and References 7 Conclusion and References A. The Survey Instrument A. The Survey Instrument 4.3 Satisfying UI and Product Requirements 4.3 Satisfying UI and Product Requirements Respondents stressed that it is essential to constrain LLM output to meet UI and product specifications, particularly when such output will be presented to end users, directly or indirectly. A common case is to incorporate LLM-generated content into UI elements that “cannot exceed certain bounds”, necessitating stringent length constraints. Content that doesn’t “fit within the UI” usually gets “thrown away” all together, a concern likely to be more pronounced on mobile devices with limited screen real estate [6, 20]. Maintaining the consistency of output length and format was also considered important, as “too much variability in the generated text can be overwhelming to the user and clutter the UI.” Moreover, being able to constrain length can help LLMs comply with specific platform character restrictions, like tweets capped at 280 characters or YouTube Shorts titles limited to 100 characters. “cannot exceed certain bounds” “fit within the UI” “too much variability in the generated text can be overwhelming to the user and clutter the UI.” 4.4 Improving User Experience, Trust, and Adoption Finally, respondents suggested that developing LLM-powered user experiences requires constraint mechanisms to mitigate hallucinations, foster user trust, and ultimately drive “user adoption.” One prominent aspect is to reduce safety and privacy concerns, for instance, by preventing LLMs from “repeat[ing] existing or hallucinat[ing] PII (personally identifiable information).” In addition, respondents expressed a desire to ensure user trust and confidence of LLM-powered tools and systems, arguing that, for example, “hallucinations in dates are easy to identify” and, in general, “users won’t invest more time into tools that aren’t accurate.” “user adoption.” “repeat[ing] existing or hallucinat[ing] PII (personally identifiable information).” “hallucinations in dates are easy to identify” “users won’t invest more time into tools that aren’t accurate.” This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv Authors:
(1) Michael Xieyang Liu, Google Research, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (lxieyang@google.com);
(2) Frederick Liu, Google Research, Seattle, Washington, USA (frederickliu@google.com);
(3) Alexander J. Fiannaca, Google Research, Seattle, Washington, USA (afiannaca@google.com);
(4) Terry Koo, Google, Indiana, USA (terrykoo@google.com);
(5) Lucas Dixon, Google Research, Paris, France (ldixon@google.com);
(6) Michael Terry, Google Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (michaelterry@google.com);
(7) Carrie J. Cai, Google Research, Mountain View, California, USA (cjcai@google.com). Authors: Authors: (1) Michael Xieyang Liu, Google Research, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (lxieyang@google.com); (2) Frederick Liu, Google Research, Seattle, Washington, USA (frederickliu@google.com); (3) Alexander J. Fiannaca, Google Research, Seattle, Washington, USA (afiannaca@google.com); (4) Terry Koo, Google, Indiana, USA (terrykoo@google.com); (5) Lucas Dixon, Google Research, Paris, France (ldixon@google.com); (6) Michael Terry, Google Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA (michaelterry@google.com); (7) Carrie J. Cai, Google Research, Mountain View, California, USA (cjcai@google.com).

Part of HackerNoon's growing list of open-source research papers, promoting free access to academic material.

YouTube

Google

Satisfying UI and Product Requirements and Improving User Experience, Trust, and Adoption

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

How to Articulate Output Constraints to LLMS

"We Need Structured Output": Towards User-Centered Constraints on Large Language Model Output

How We Deployed an Online Survey to Users of an Internal Prompt-Based Prototyping Platform

Real-World Use Cases That Necessitate Output Constraints

The Benefits of Applying Constraints to LLM Outputs

How We Integrated Downstream Processes and Workflows

How to Articulate Output Constraints to LLMS

"We Need Structured Output": Towards User-Centered Constraints on Large Language Model Output

How We Deployed an Online Survey to Users of an Internal Prompt-Based Prototyping Platform

Real-World Use Cases That Necessitate Output Constraints

The Benefits of Applying Constraints to LLM Outputs

How We Integrated Downstream Processes and Workflows

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps