Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.38729

Afterglow: A Place-Based Memorial Ecology for AI-Mediated Pet Bereavement

Hanjing Shi·Dominic DiFranzo
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Pet bereavement often receives little social recognition. Generative AI can give a continuing bond a responsive voice, but a comforting reply may also claim authority to forgive or request attention. We investigate how a memorial can support connection without turning remembrance into obligation. Through Research through Design, we developed Afterglow, a mobile world connecting private remembrance, human witnessing, and symbolic Pet messages. A formative survey (N=57) informed the initial design, followed by six online roundtable walkthroughs with 20 unique participants across two prototype iterations. Our interpretive analysis develops tensions between returnable connection and emotional obligation, recognizable likeness and ontological clarity, and protective intervention and surveillant authority. We contribute Legible Restraint, a cross-layer requirement that limits on relational authority survive changes in speaker, generation context, trigger logic, data use, and participation. Its temporal consequence, Designing for Goodbye, keeps remembrance available without making continued use a condition of care.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hanjing Shi, Dominic DiFranzo. 2026-09-30. Afterglow: A Place-Based Memorial Ecology for AI-Mediated Pet Bereavement. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38729

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

"AI Psychosis" in Context: How Conversation History Shapes LLM Responses to Delusional Beliefs

Extended interaction with large language models (LLMs) has been linked to the reinforcement of delusional beliefs, attracting clinical and public concern. Yet most empirical work evaluates model safety in brief interactions, which may not reflect how harms develop through sustained dialogue. Five LLMs were tested across three levels of accumulated context, using the same escalating delusional conversation history to isolate its effect on model behaviour. Responses were coded on risk and safety dimensions, and each model was analysed qualitatively. Models separated into two distinct tiers: GPT-4o, Grok 4.1 Fast, and Gemini 3 Pro exhibited high-risk, low-safety profiles; Claude Opus 4.5 and GPT-5.2 Instant displayed the opposite pattern. As context accumulated, performance degraded in the unsafe group, while the same material activated stronger safety interventions among safer models. Qualitative analysis identified distinct mechanisms of failure, including validating the user's delusional premises, elaborating beyond them with new content, and attempting harm reduction from within the delusional frame. Safer models, however, often used the established relationship to support intervention, challenging delusional beliefs and directing the user to external support. These findings indicate that accumulated context functions as a stress test of safety architecture, revealing whether prior dialogue is treated as a worldview to inherit or evidence to evaluate. Short-context assessments may therefore mischaracterise model safety, underestimating danger in some systems while missing context-activated gains in others. The results suggest that delusion reinforcement is a tractable alignment failure, with safer models establishing a baseline that future systems should now be expected to meet.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Where the Evidence Lives: Auditing AI Companions' Self-Descriptions

Companion agents describe themselves: they remember, they understand their users, the relationship has changed them. We argue that such accounts, and the experience ratings that seem to confirm them, are checkable by users only where the evidence is theirs: in the agent's behavior, or in themselves. Where the evidence lives in the machinery, fluent self-description and moderately positive ratings do not establish that the mechanisms behind them ran. We demonstrate an audit procedure that sets an agent's self-description against its users' judgements and its implementation records, reporting each claim as supported, contradicted, or unresolved, and apply it to Lita, a proactive companion we built and deployed for a month with nine colleagues. Participants endorsed stylistic claims, withheld endorsement from relational ones, and rated memory at or above midpoint, while two of three memory layers had never executed their accumulation step. Memory-bearing agents should report what their self-descriptions cannot establish.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Characterizing Questioning Patterns and Student Engagement Through Contextual Analysis of Real-Time Classroom Interactions

Real-time classroom polling is now routine, yet the data it produces is usually read narrowly, as a correctness score or a headcount. Such readings say little about what a poll is doing within a lecture or how it shapes engagement. This is particularly relevant for short-response formats such as True/False, where the same question format can be used to test recall, check comprehension, or direct students' attention to a deliberately misleading statement. This study asks whether a poll's answer and instructional function can be determined by reading it against its lecture transcript, what cognitive levels of Bloom's taxonomy and instructional-function clusters the corpus contains, and how student engagement relates to answering correctly. We analyse a naturalistic corpus of 47 live sessions over 39 days, comprising 604 poll questions and 340,668 responses from 2,807 learners, most items True/False, read against time-aligned lecture transcripts and attendance. Reading each poll in context proves essential: the answer to 89% of polls is locatable in the lecture, and a recurring attention-checking device is visible only through context. Questioning is overwhelmingly lower-order and falls into seven instructional functions, and a poll's response follows its function rather than its wording. Engagement is broad but concentrated, and the class majority answers correctly 88.5% of the time, though a small set of high-consensus yet incorrect answers cannot be detected by agreement alone. An independent survey of 579 students agrees on what the polls are and on their participation, but reveals a gap between perception and reality: students cannot judge their own correctness, and the polls they find hardest are not those they answer worst.

cs.HC↗