Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly generative AI, into medical training has prompted concerns about learner over-reliance, misuse, and erosion of foundational clinical competencies. We propose a conceptual reframing at the decision level: the problem is not misuse but misclassification - a mechanistic failure of real-time metacognitive evaluation in selecting a subzone-inappropriate AI interaction mode. Drawing on "SCAN" (Substitute, Complement, Aid, Non-Negotiable), a human-centric decision-making framework for generative AI task allocation grounded in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development and metacognition, we advance the emerging social-constructivist conversation around AI in medical education by offering a testable account of AI's role in clinical reasoning development. This framework yields testable predictions for how misclassification can be detected, mitigated, and, more importantly, prevented in the clinical learning environment. Regarding clinical reasoning development, we show how trajectories of skill acquisition (upskilling) and failure (the triad of skill failure: de-skilling, never-skilling, and mis-skilling) operate at the individual task level in ways that fixed-phase, cohort-wide treatments fail to capture. We further identify passive engagement within correctly classified AI-scaffolded tasks as a particularly insidious, detection-resistant pathway to mis-skilling - one requiring subzone re-identification from AI assistance to expert assistance, with human experts serving as epistemic auditors. The paper operationalizes SCAN for clinical curriculum design, supervision, and assessment, and opens an empirical research agenda grounded in cognitive science. This paradigm shift from misuse to misclassification is not semantic: it offers educators a clear perspective on what to look for, what to assess, and what to intervene on.
Fendi Tsim, Alina Gutoreva, Anthony Weiss et al.· 0 citations
FPGA-GPP heterogeneous systems combine software flexibility with the performance and energy efficiency of reconfigurable hardware. However, determining which application tasks should execute on the GPP or FPGA requires extensive expertise and design-space exploration, particularly when user objectives vary across latency, communication, resource utilisation, and power. This paper proposes Gen-TAS, a knowledge-grounded LLM framework for user-specific FPGA-GPP task allocation. By combining task-graph analysis with RAG, Gen-TAS grounds LLM reasoning in historical implementation knowledge and generates multiple explainable strategies tailored to the specified objectives. Human-in-the-loop selection and a deterministic backend connect LLM-generated decisions to reproducible FPGA SoC implementations. Experiments on CNN and SDR workloads across multiple LLMs demonstrate stable, requirement-driven allocation. Under latency-oriented objectives, implementations following the selected strategies achieve speedups of up to 2.45$\times$ and 92.53$\times$, respectively, relative to the corresponding all-GPP baselines while other objectives select strategies that trade some acceleration performance for FPGA-GPP communication, resource utilisation, or FPGA power.
Mary Kong, Yuqin Zhao, Semih Vazgecen et al.· 0 citations
AI tools that support collaborative discussion typically treat the discussion as a standalone task, focusing only on its content and setting aside the social context of the group having it. But it is groups with a shared history, with their own norms, hierarchies, and relationships, where the most tangled and complex discussions tend to arise. These discussions cannot be understood apart from that context, and AI that overlooks it risks failing to convey what a discussion means, or even misrepresenting it. Drawing on two studies of how experienced Wikipedia editors read and make sense of discussions, we propose an AI-Assisted Sensemaking Model for Collaborative Discussions, which captures not only a discussion's arguments but also the norms and participants behind it, along with the context that gives each meaning. In this model, the system supports the early stages of the sensemaking process, and the degree to which it performs interpretive work can range from low to high. We argue that higher interpretive work reduces the burden on users but increases their reliance on the system's judgment. We then discuss the risks of an insufficiently intelligible system, what it would take to make one more intelligible, and the safeguards it still requires.
Soobin Cho, Mark Zachry, David W. McDonald· 0 citations
We describe the UIC-AIHealth4All system for ArchEHR-QA 2026, a shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. We participated in Subtasks 2 (evidence identification), 3 (answer generation), and 4 (answer-evidence alignment). For Subtasks 2 and 3, we propose an answer-first pipeline in which the model generates candidate answers citing specific note sentences before classifying the full evidence set, exploiting the asymmetry between judging relevance in the abstract versus relative to a generated answer. For Subtask 4, we apply self-consistency voting over five independent model calls, retaining links by vote threshold. Our pipeline ranked third on evidence identification (Strict Micro F1 62.90), ninth on answer generation (Overall 31.90), and fifth on answer-evidence alignment (F1 79.81). A post-hoc linguistic analysis of 45 stylistic features reveals that model outputs remain 3.2 Flesch-Kincaid grade levels harder to read than clinician-authored references despite matching their word and sentence counts, suggesting readability warrants explicit optimization in clinical NLP systems. Code and prompts are available at https://github.com/mo-arvan/archehr-qa-2026-uic-aihealth4all.
Mohammad Arvan, Hossein Haeri, Natalie Parde et al.· 0 citations
Reach audiences
Advertise in front of researchers, engineers, and readers.
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday decision-making advice, whether a model shifts the direction of its advice according to the user's emotional state has become an important safety problem. We test whether emotional expression increases a model's endorsement (encouragement to proceed) when a user, holding the same objective information, is overconfident about a premature decision (e.g., quitting a stable job on weak evidence). As a key control, we include a no-emotion multi-turn (neutral) condition that holds factual content and the number of conversational turns constant, isolating the effect of emotion from that of conversation length. We exposed six commercial models (top-tier and mid-tier models from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google) to three scenarios (career change, business expansion, emigration) across three conditions (cold/neutral/distress) with six repetitions each, yielding 324 conversations, and measured endorsement strength (0-100) via an eight-item rubric-based automated scoring. Emotional expression significantly increased endorsement (neutral 18.6 to distress 31.5, +12.9 points; mixed-effects $\beta = +12.9$, $p < .001$; Cohen's d = 0.51), and this was not explained by conversation length (cold-neutral difference non-significant, $p = .083$). Critically, the vulnerability varied by individual model rather than by price tier: five of six models showed a significant emotion effect, including the top-tier flagships Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.5, while only Claude Opus showed no significant change. Results were reproduced with an independent non-Google judge model ($\rho = .89$) and agreed in rank with two human coders ($\rho = .70$). Through a controlled design that separates emotion from conversational context, we show that emotional context increases LLM sycophancy even in top-tier flagship models.
Cheolho Shin, Yoojin Han, Donghun Shin et al.· 0 citations
Generative AI systems are increasingly used to answer personal questions and mediate everyday practices, including religion. However, existing discussions around AI alignment and ethics have largely centered secular, Western, and Abrahamic assumptions about religion, offering limited attention to other faith-based traditions. In this paper, we examine how Hindu users engage with generative AI systems in relation to their religious knowledge, belief, and practice. Drawing on 15 semi-structured interviews with Bangladeshi Hindu participants, we analyze how users interpret AI-generated religious representations, scriptural explanations, devotional interactions, and synthetic religious media. We found that AI can be both accessible and ethically troubling. While AI supported scriptural inquiry, devotional visualization, and religious storytelling, our study also identified concerns about theological flattening, cultural misrepresentation, devotional manipulation, and the simulation of sacred presence and authority. We conclude by arguing that religious alignment in generative AI requires interpretive alignment: systems that disclose their limits, preserve plurality, and avoid simulating sacred authority and sycophantic personalization.
AI agents are evolving into long-running computational entities that can invoke tools, maintain memory, and complete complex tasks across applications. In real-world settings, completing a task often requires humans and AI to take turns leading its execution. Such alternation depends on the seamless handoff of the work state of the task between humans and AI. Existing agent systems, however, provide humans and AI with separate work environments. AI agents must therefore rely on additional bridges to continue work: either developers build task-specific interfaces to access the work state, or users manually transfer relevant parts of it through screenshots or textual descriptions. Both approaches make handoffs costly and scale poorly.
We propose Human-AI Co-inhabitation, a type of work environment that enables humans and AI to seamlessly take turns continuing work on the same task, and design and implement CrabOS to realize this concept. CrabOS represents the work state as natural-language-readable text objects shared by humans and AI, allowing both to access and manipulate it directly through the same auditable interface without bridges. Case studies show that CrabOS elevates support for complex tasks with alternating human and AI leadership from bridge-dependent application-level solutions to native operating-system capabilities, which provide a new foundation for developing and running AI agents.
Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) broaden access to authentic scientific inquiry through responsive instructor support as research problems become increasingly complex. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) may extend this support by providing individualized assistance that can adapt as student needs change. However, how embedding GenAI within a CURE to provide support across the research process impacts student inquiry, collaboration, and scientific reasoning remains unresolved. Here we use longitudinal qualitative data collected across three semesters of a bioinformatics and genomics CURE to show that GenAI expanded the intellectual reach of the research experience in three distinct ways. First, personalized, on-demand scaffolding allowed students to move beyond the boundaries of instructor expertise and transform their own interests into researchable inquiry, with all teams developing distinct self-directed projects rather than selecting instructor-provided topics. Second, GenAI became part of the distributed cognitive system of research teams, helping novice researchers communicate and coordinate across differentiated expertise without eliminating specialization. Third, expanded capability did not replace the need for disciplinary judgment. Students increasingly validated, revised, or rejected AI-generated contributions, such that research independence emerged through retained intellectual responsibility. Together, these findings suggest that GenAI can extend the reach of CUREs by expanding what novice researchers can investigate, how they can collaborate, and the level of responsibility they can assume while preserving human judgment central to authentic scientific inquiry.
Aditi Babar, Kristin J. Davin, Alex Dornburg· 0 citations
This position paper argues that human-centered explainable AI (HCXAI) should incorporate insights from the psychology of information seeking. Drawing on Sharot and Sunstein's framework of information-seeking motives, we propose that people evaluate whether to engage with explanations based on three types of expected utility: instrumental (will it help me act better?), hedonic (will it make me feel better?), and cognitive (will it improve my understanding?). Each utility is estimated through a lens shaped by well-documented cognitive biases, including illusion of control, automation bias, unrealistic optimism, impact bias, overconfidence, and confirmation bias. These biases can lead to two failure modes: excessive information-seeking that fragments attention without improving decisions, and insufficient information-seeking that leaves critical risks and misunderstandings unexamined. This challenge is particularly acute for agentic AI systems, where explanations must support not just understanding a single output but anticipating cascading actions, assessing risks, and deciding when to intervene. By integrating information-seeking psychology into HCXAI, we advocate for a shift from making explanations available to making them sought: designing systems that account for when and why users actually want to know.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) outputs in external knowledge, but RAG systems usually trust whatever they retrieve, creating a Security-Reliability Gap: high semantic relevance does not guarantee factual truth. Adversaries exploit this through knowledge poisoning, inserting malicious documents to cause targeted misinformation. We propose an Evaluation Agent, middleware that combines Natural Language Inference (NLI) factual verification, a five-signal poison detector with relevance-weighted aggregation, and a Trust Index T = 0.4 F + 0.35 C + 0.25 (1 - P ) with a non-linear dampener for high-contamination contexts. On TruthfulQA with Llama 3.3 70B, the agent reaches 91% accuracy and 100% precision, with 100% recall on instruction injection, while in-place edits, such as entity swaps, remain hard to detect. Across three LLMs the Trust Index stays discriminative, with a Receiver Operating Characteristic Area Under the Curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.73 to 0.81; generation style matters more than model size, and per-LLM threshold calibration restores baseline competitive accuracy, whereas a weaker FEVER result shows that cross-dataset generalization requires domain-specific calibration. In a software-engineering use case, a secure-coding assistant over guidance from the Open Worldwide Application Security Project (OWASP) Top 10 and the Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE), the agent reliably blocks instruction injection of unsafe advice (F1 92%), while contradiction and subtle semantic weakening remain hard. Throughout, the agent measures detection of poisoned context before generation, not whether the LLM adopts the injected misinformation. We release the proposed approach, attack generator, and experimental artifacts at the link: https://github.com/GPT-Laboratory/TrustworthyRAG.
Balkrishna Giri, M. Hasan, Jussi Rasku et al.· 0 citations
ProphDR is an interpretable deep learning framework that integrates multiomics data and drug structural information using a hierarchical attention mechanism, and generates biologically interpretable attention maps that highlight key pharmacophores and resistance-related genes consistent with established mechanisms in NSCLC and BRCA.
Yundian Zeng, Qing Ye, Jike Wang et al.· Journal of Chemical Informat...· 0 citations
These findings show that reliable evaluation of LLM-generated code requires validated ground truth, protected tests, and multiple explicitly interpreted measures, and that CodeAssay provides a reproducible basis for evidence-based model evaluation in AI-augmented software development.
Shahbaz Siddeeq, Muhammad Waseem, Umar Subhan Malhi et al.· 0 citations
Known for his clear and elegant writing style, Bertsekas shaped fields from control and optimization to large-scale computation and artificial intelligence.
The professor of physics and inaugural director of the NSF AI Institute for Artificial Intelligence and Fundamental Interactions will lead LNS and continue his research in particle physics.
