Current discourse on Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics, dominated by "trustworthy" and "responsible" AI, overlooks a more fundamental human-computer interaction (HCI) crisis: the erosion of human agency. This paper argues that the primary challenge of high-stakes AI systems is not trust, but the preservation of human causal control. We posit that "bad AI" will function as "bad UI," a metaphor for catastrophic interface failures that misrepresent system state and lead to human error. Applying Marshall McLuhan's media theory, AI can be framed as a technology of "augmentation" that simultaneously "amputates" the user's direct perception of causality. This places the interface as the critical locus where a "double uncertainty"--that of the human user and that of the probabilistic model--must be mediated. We critique current Explainable AI (XAI) for its correlational focus and failure to represent uncertainty. We conclude by proposing a rigorous, nested Causal-Agency Framework (CAF) that integrates causal models, uncertainty quantification, and human-centered evaluation to restore agency at the interface.
Data-driven algorithmic matching systems promise to help human decision makers make better matching decisions in a wide variety of high-stakes application domains, such as healthcare and social service provision. However, existing systems are not designed to achieve human-AI complementarity: decisions made by a human using an algorithmic matching system are not necessarily better than those made by the human or by the algorithm alone. Our work aims to address this gap. To this end, we propose collaborative matching (comatch), a data-driven algorithmic matching system that takes a collaborative approach: rather than making all the matching decisions for a matching task like existing systems, it selects only the decisions that it is the most confident in, deferring the rest to the human decision maker. In the process, comatch optimizes how many decisions it makes and how many it defers to the human decision maker to provably maximize performance. We conduct a large-scale human subject study with $800$ participants to validate the proposed approach. The results demonstrate that the matching outcomes produced by comatch outperform those generated by either human participants or by algo
As AI technology continues to advance, the importance of human-AI collaboration becomes increasingly evident, with numerous studies exploring its potential in various fields. One vital field is data science, including feature engineering (FE), where both human ingenuity and AI capabilities play pivotal roles. Despite the existence of AI-generated recommendations for FE, there remains a limited understanding of how to effectively integrate and utilize humans' and AI's knowledge. To address this gap, we design a readily-usable prototype, human\&AI-assisted FE in Jupyter notebooks. It harnesses the strengths of humans and AI to provide feature suggestions to users, seamlessly integrating these recommendations into practical workflows. Using the prototype as a research probe, we conducted an exploratory study to gain valuable insights into data science practitioners' perceptions, usage patterns, and their potential needs when presented with feature suggestions from both humans and AI. Through qualitative analysis, we discovered that the Creator of the feature (i.e., AI or human) significantly influences users' feature selection, and the semantic clarity of the suggested feature gre
Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into business process management tools promises to democratize Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) modeling for non-experts. While automated frameworks assess syntactic and semantic quality, they miss human factors like trust, usability, and professional alignment. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of our proposed solution, an LLM-powered BPMN copilot, with five process modeling experts using focus groups and standardized questionnaires. Our findings reveal a critical tension between acceptable perceived usability (mean CUQ score: 67.2/100) and notably lower trust (mean score: 48.8\%), with reliability rated as the most critical concern (M=1.8/5). Furthermore, we identified output-quality issues, prompting difficulties, and a need for the LLM to ask more in-depth clarifying questions about the process. We envision five use cases ranging from domain-expert support to enterprise quality assurance. We demonstrate the necessity of human-centered evaluation complementing automated benchmarking for LLM modeling agents.
Human-in-the-loop learning is gaining popularity, particularly in the field of robotics, because it leverages human knowledge about real-world tasks to facilitate agent learning. When people instruct robots, they naturally adapt their teaching behavior in response to changes in robot performance. While current research predominantly focuses on integrating human teaching dynamics from an algorithmic perspective, understanding these dynamics from a human-centered standpoint is an under-explored, yet fundamental problem. Addressing this issue will enhance both robot learning and user experience. Therefore, this paper explores one potential factor contributing to the dynamic nature of human teaching: robot errors. We conducted a user study to investigate how the presence and severity of robot errors affect three dimensions of human teaching dynamics: feedback granularity, feedback richness, and teaching time, in both forced-choice and open-ended teaching contexts. The results show that people tend to spend more time teaching robots with errors, provide more detailed feedback over specific segments of a robot's trajectory, and that robot error can influence a teacher's choice of feedbac
This technical monograph provides a comprehensive overview of the field of quantum biology. It approaches quantum biology from a physical perspective with core quantum mechanical concepts presented foremost to provide a theoretical foundation for the field. An extensive body of research is covered to clarify the significance of quantum biology as a scientific field, outlining the field's long-standing importance in the historical development of quantum theory. This lays the essential groundwork to enable further advances in nanomedicine and biotechnology. Written for academics, biological science researchers, physicists, biochemists, medical technologists, and students of quantum mechanics, this text brings clarity to fundamental advances being made in the emerging science of quantum biology.
While generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) increasingly transforms academic environments, a critical gap exists in understanding and mitigating human biases in AI interactions, such as anchoring and confirmation bias. This position paper advocates for metacognitive AI literacy interventions to help university students critically engage with AI and address biases across the Human-AI interaction workflows. The paper presents the importance of considering (1) metacognitive support with deliberate friction focusing on human bias; (2) bi-directional Human-AI interaction intervention addressing both input formulation and output interpretation; and (3) adaptive scaffolding that responds to diverse user engagement patterns. These frameworks are illustrated through ongoing work on "DeBiasMe," AIED (AI in Education) interventions designed to enhance awareness of cognitive biases while empowering user agency in AI interactions. The paper invites multiple stakeholders to engage in discussions on design and evaluation methods for scaffolding mechanisms, bias visualization, and analysis frameworks. This position contributes to the emerging field of AI-augmented learning by emphasizing the
This article frames the relation between biology and physics by characterizing the former as a subdiscipline rather than a special case of the latter. To do this, we posit biological physics as the science of living matter in contrast to classic biophysics, the study of organismal properties by physical techniques. At the scale of the individual cell, living matter is nonunitary, i.e., not composed of aggregated subunits, and has features (e.g., intracellular organizational arrangements and biomolecular condensates) that are unlike any materials of the nonliving world. In transiently or constitutively multicellular forms (social microorganisms, animals, plants), living matter sustains physical processes that are generic (shared with nonliving matter, e.g., subunit communication by molecular diffusion in cellular slime molds), biogeneric (analogous to nonliving matter but realized through cellular activities, e.g., subunit demixing in animal embryos) or nongeneric (pertaining to sui generis materials, e.g., budding of active solids in plants). This "forms of matter" perspective is philosophically situated in the dialectical materialism of Engels and Hessen and the multilevel physica
This paper examines how trust is formed, maintained, or diminished over time in the context of human-autonomy teaming with an optionally piloted aircraft. Whereas traditional factor-based trust models offer a static representation of human confidence in technology, here we discuss how variations in the underlying factors lead to variations in trust, trust thresholds, and human behaviours. Over 200 hours of flight test data collected over a multi-year test campaign from 2021 to 2023 were reviewed. The dispositional-situational-learned, process-performance-purpose, and IMPACTS homeostasis trust models are applied to illuminate trust trends during nominal autonomous flight operations. The results offer promising directions for future studies on trust dynamics and design-for-trust in human-autonomy teaming.
The recent rapid advancement of LLM-based AI systems has accelerated our search and production of information. While the advantages brought by these systems seemingly improve the performance or efficiency of human activities, they do not necessarily enhance human capabilities. Recent research has started to examine the impact of generative AI on individuals' cognitive abilities, especially critical thinking. Based on definitions of critical thinking across psychology and education, this position paper proposes the distinction between demonstrated and performed critical thinking in the era of generative AI and discusses the implication of this distinction in research and development of AI systems that aim to augment human critical thinking.
While the proliferation of foundation models has significantly boosted individual productivity, it also introduces a potential challenge: the homogenization of creative content. In response, we revisit Design-by-Analogy (DbA), a cognitively grounded approach that fosters novel solutions by mapping inspiration across domains. However, prevailing perspectives often restrict DbA to early ideation or specific data modalities, while reducing AI-driven design to simplified input-output pipelines. Such conceptual limitations inadvertently foster widespread design fixation. To address this, we expand the understanding of DbA by embedding it into the entire creative process, thereby demonstrating its capacity to mitigate such fixation. Through a systematic review of 85 studies, we identify six forms of representation and classify techniques across seven stages of the creative process. We further discuss three major application domains: creative industries, intelligent manufacturing, and education and services, demonstrating DbA's practical relevance. Building on this synthesis, we frame DbA as a mediating technology for human-AI collaboration and outline the potential opportunities and inhe
Our ability to build autonomous agents that leverage Generative AI continues to increase by the day. As builders and users of such agents it is unclear what parameters we need to align on before the agents start performing tasks on our behalf. To discover these parameters, we ran a qualitative empirical research study about designing agents that can negotiate during a fictional yet relatable task of selling a camera online. We found that for an agent to perform the task successfully, humans/users and agents need to align over 6 dimensions: 1) Knowledge Schema Alignment 2) Autonomy and Agency Alignment 3) Operational Alignment and Training 4) Reputational Heuristics Alignment 5) Ethics Alignment and 6) Human Engagement Alignment. These empirical findings expand previous work related to process and specification alignment and the need for values and safety in Human-AI interactions. Subsequently we discuss three design directions for designers who are imagining a world filled with Human-Agent collaborations.
AI agents designed to collaborate with people benefit from models that enable them to anticipate human behavior. However, realistic models tend to require vast amounts of human data, which is often hard to collect. A good prior or initialization could make for more data-efficient training, but what makes for a good prior on human behavior? Our work leverages a very simple assumption: people generally act closer to optimal than to random chance. We show that using optimal behavior as a prior for human models makes these models vastly more data-efficient and able to generalize to new environments. Our intuition is that such a prior enables the training to focus one's precious real-world data on capturing the subtle nuances of human suboptimality, instead of on the basics of how to do the task in the first place. We also show that using these improved human models often leads to better human-AI collaboration performance compared to using models based on real human data alone.
Heuristic evaluation is a widely used method in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) to inspect interfaces and identify issues based on heuristics. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs), such as GPT-4o, have been applied in HCI to assist in persona creation, the ideation process, and the analysis of semi-structured interviews. However, considering the need to understand heuristics and the high degree of abstraction required to evaluate them, LLMs may have difficulty conducting heuristic evaluation. However, prior research has not investigated GPT-4o's performance in heuristic evaluation compared to HCI experts in web-based systems. In this context, this study aims to compare the results of a heuristic evaluation performed by GPT-4o and human experts. To this end, we selected a set of screenshots from a web system and asked GPT-4o to perform a heuristic evaluation based on Nielsen's Heuristics from a literature-grounded prompt. Our results indicate that only 21.2% of the issues identified by human experts were also identified by GPT-4o, despite it found 27 new issues. We also found that GPT-4o performed better for heuristics related to aesthetic and minimalist design and match between
Human-robot collaboration in surgery represents a significant area of research, driven by the increasing capability of autonomous robotic systems to assist surgeons in complex procedures. This systematic review examines the advancements and persistent challenges in the development of autonomous surgical robotic assistants (ASARs), focusing specifically on scenarios where robots provide meaningful and active support to human surgeons. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across the IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, resulting in the selection of 32 studies for detailed analysis. Two primary collaborative setups were identified: teleoperation-based assistance and direct hands-on interaction. The findings reveal a growing research emphasis on ASARs, with predominant applications currently in endoscope guidance, alongside emerging progress in autonomous tool manipulation. Several key challenges hinder wider adoption, including the alignment of robotic actions with human surgeon preferences, the necessity for procedural awareness within autonomous systems, the establishment of seamless human-robot information exchange, and th
Over the last years, the rising capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) have improved human decision-making in many application areas. Teaming between AI and humans may even lead to complementary team performance (CTP), i.e., a level of performance beyond the ones that can be reached by AI or humans individually. Many researchers have proposed using explainable AI (XAI) to enable humans to rely on AI advice appropriately and thereby reach CTP. However, CTP is rarely demonstrated in previous work as often the focus is on the design of explainability, while a fundamental prerequisite -- the presence of complementarity potential between humans and AI -- is often neglected. Therefore, we focus on the existence of this potential for effective human-AI decision-making. Specifically, we identify information asymmetry as an essential source of complementarity potential, as in many real-world situations, humans have access to different contextual information. By conducting an online experiment, we demonstrate that humans can use such contextual information to adjust the AI's decision, finally resulting in CTP.
Understanding the biological mechanisms of disease is crucial for medicine, and in particular, for drug discovery. AI-powered analysis of genome-scale biological data holds great potential in this regard. The increasing availability of single-cell RNA sequencing data has enabled the development of large foundation models for disease biology. However, existing foundation models only modestly improve over task-specific models in downstream applications. Here, we explored two avenues for improving single-cell foundation models. First, we scaled the pre-training data to a diverse collection of 116 million cells, which is larger than those used by previous models. Second, we leveraged the availability of large-scale biological annotations as a form of supervision during pre-training. We trained the \model family of models comprising six transformer-based state-of-the-art single-cell foundation models with 70 million, 160 million, and 400 million parameters. We vetted our models on several downstream evaluation tasks, including identifying the underlying disease state of held-out donors not seen during training, distinguishing between diseased and healthy cells for disease conditions and
We developed a theory showing that under appropriate normalizations and rescalings, temperature response curves show a remarkably regular behavior and follow a general, universal law. The impressive universality of temperature response curves remained hidden due to various curve-fitting models not well-grounded in first principles. In addition, this framework has the potential to explain the origin of different scaling relationships in thermal performance in biology, from molecules to ecosystems. Here, we summarize the background, principles and assumptions, predictions, implications, and possible extensions of this theory.
High-quality human annotations are necessary for creating effective machine learning-driven stream processing systems. We study hybrid stream processing systems based on a Human-In-The-Loop Machine Learning (HITL-ML) paradigm, in which one or many human annotators and an automatic classifier (trained at least partially by the human annotators) label an incoming stream of instances. This is typical of many near-real-time social media analytics and web applications, including annotating social media posts during emergencies by digital volunteer groups. From a practical perspective, low-quality human annotations result in wrong labels for retraining automated classifiers and indirectly contribute to the creation of inaccurate classifiers. Considering human annotation as a psychological process allows us to address these limitations. We show that human annotation quality is dependent on the ordering of instances shown to annotators and can be improved by local changes in the instance sequence/order provided to the annotators, yielding a more accurate annotation of the stream. We adapt a theoretically-motivated human error framework of mistakes and slips for the human annotation task to
Systems biology relies on mathematical models that often involve complex and intractable likelihood functions, posing challenges for efficient inference and model selection. Generative models, such as normalizing flows, have shown remarkable ability in approximating complex distributions in various domains. However, their application in systems biology for approximating intractable likelihood functions remains unexplored. Here, we elucidate a framework for leveraging normalizing flows to approximate complex likelihood functions inherent to systems biology models. By using normalizing flows in the Simulation-based inference setting, we demonstrate a method that not only approximates a likelihood function but also allows for model inference in the model selection setting. We showcase the effectiveness of this approach on real-world systems biology problems, providing practical guidance for implementation and highlighting its advantages over traditional computational methods.