arXiv subjects

Mina Lee

Publications and source records attributed to Mina Lee.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

What Influences Readers' and Writers' Perceived Necessity of AI Disclosure?

The growing capability of artificial intelligence (AI) leads to its increasing adoption in writing, spurring discussions around whether writers should disclose their AI use in writing. What influences the perceived necessity of disclosure? We look into this question from three dimensions: perspective (reader or writer of the text), purpose (the goal of reading or writing), and procedural factors (how AI was used in the writing process in terms of replaceability, effortfulness, intentionality, and directness). In a vignette study (N = 727), we find that readers consider disclosure to be more necessary than writers, and disclosure is regarded as more necessary when AI's contribution in writing is irreplaceable, directly incorporated, and when the writer does not intentionally steer AI generation. To our surprise, the writers' intentionality of AI use produces contrasting effects on readers' and writers' perceived necessity of disclosure. Moreover, the effort of writing shows no significant effect on the perceived necessity. This study contributes to the conversation on transparent AI use by revealing readers' and writers' grassroots judgments, providing a unique angle to reflect on existing regulations, and offering insights into how AI disclosure guidance and tools could be designed to better align with readers' and writers' perceptions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Investigating the Effects of LLM Use on Critical Thinking Under Time Constraints: Access Timing and Time Availability

The impact of large language models (LLMs) on critical thinking has provoked growing attention, yet this impact on actual performance may not be uniformly negative or positive. Particularly, the role of time -- the temporal context under which an LLM is provided -- remains overlooked. In a between-subjects experiment (n=393), we examined two types of time constraints for a critical thinking task requiring participants to make a reasoned decision for a real-world scenario based on diverse documents: (1) LLM access timing -- an LLM available only at the beginning (early), throughout (continuous), near the end (late), or not at all (no LLM), and (2) time availability -- insufficient or sufficient time for the task. We found a temporal reversal: LLM access from the start (early, continuous) improved performance under time pressure but impaired it with sufficient time, whereas beginning the task independently (late, no LLM) showed the opposite pattern. These findings demonstrate that time constraints fundamentally shape whether an LLM augments or undermines critical thinking, making time a central consideration when designing LLM support and evaluating human-AI collaboration in cognitive tasks.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

What Does AI Do for Cultural Interpretation? A Randomized Experiment on Close Reading Poems with Exposure to AI Interpretation

AI demonstrates unprecedented reasoning capabilities, but its increasing integration into human reasoning via automated reading and summarization has provoked debate about its use for cultural interpretation. Close reading -- the practice of understanding, analyzing, and critiquing cultural texts for pleasure -- is a skill at the core of such interpretation, traditionally being seen as exclusive to humans. To test AI's impact on close reading, both in terms of interpretative performance and pleasure, we conducted a preregistered randomized experiment (n=400) investigating the impact of AI assistance by presenting single or multiple AI interpretations, on close reading poems, compared to no AI assistance. We found that single AI interpretation boosted both performance and pleasure, while multiple AI interpretations only improved performance. Further exploration revealed a trade-off: participants who heavily relied on AI showed better performance on the task but lower pleasure. Our results contribute to discussion on whether and how to calibrate AI assistance for cultural interpretation: "less is more."

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Optimizing Diversity and Quality through Base-Aligned Model Collaboration

Alignment has greatly improved large language models (LLMs)' output quality at the cost of diversity, yielding highly similar outputs across generations, especially in open-ended generation tasks. We propose Base-Aligned Model Collaboration (BACo), an inference-time token-level model collaboration framework that dynamically combines a base LLM with its aligned counterpart to optimize diversity and quality. Using uncertainty and content-based signals, BACo employs routing strategies to determine, at each token, which model to decode from. Prior diversity-promoting methods often improve diversity at the expense of quality or require expensive decoding or post-training. In contrast, BACo achieves both high diversity and quality post hoc within a single pass, while offering strong controllability. We introduce a family of effective routing strategies and evaluate them across three open-ended generation tasks with 13 diversity and quality metrics. BACo consistently surpasses state-of-the-art inference-time baselines. With our best router, BACo achieves a 21.3% joint improvement in diversity and quality, which is further supported by human evaluations. Overall, our results demonstrate that collaboration between base and aligned models provides an effective and controllable mechanism for optimizing the diversity-quality trade-off.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Unraveling Misinformation Propagation in LLM Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning, positioning them as promising tools for supporting human problem-solving. However, what happens when their performance is affected by misinformation, i.e., incorrect inputs introduced by users due to oversights or gaps in knowledge? Such misinformation is prevalent in real-world interactions with LLMs, yet how it propagates within LLMs' reasoning process remains underexplored. Focusing on mathematical reasoning, we present a comprehensive analysis of how misinformation affects intermediate reasoning steps and final answers. We also examine how effectively LLMs can correct misinformation when explicitly instructed to do so. Even with explicit instructions, LLMs succeed less than half the time in rectifying misinformation, despite possessing correct internal knowledge, leading to significant accuracy drops (10.02% - 72.20%), and the degradation holds with thinking models (4.30% - 19.97%). Further analysis shows that applying factual corrections early in the reasoning process most effectively reduces misinformation propagation, and fine-tuning on synthesized data with early-stage corrections significantly improves reasoning factuality. Our work offers a practical approach to mitigating misinformation propagation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Understanding, Protecting, and Augmenting Human Cognition with Generative AI: A Synthesis of the CHI 2025 Tools for Thought Workshop

Generative AI (GenAI) radically expands the scope and capability of automation for work, education, and everyday tasks, a transformation posing both risks and opportunities for human cognition. How will human cognition change, and what opportunities are there for GenAI to augment it? Which theories, metrics, and other tools are needed to address these questions? The CHI 2025 workshop on Tools for Thought aimed to bridge an emerging science of how the use of GenAI affects human thought, from metacognition to critical thinking, memory, and creativity, with an emerging design practice for building GenAI tools that both protect and augment human thought. Fifty-six researchers, designers, and thinkers from across disciplines as well as industry and academia, along with 34 papers and portfolios, seeded a day of discussion, ideation, and community-building. We synthesize this material here to begin mapping the space of research and design opportunities and to catalyze a multidisciplinary community around this pressing area of research.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Penalizing Transparency? How AI Disclosure and Author Demographics Shape Human and AI Judgments About Writing

As AI integrates in various types of human writing, calls for transparency around AI assistance are growing. However, if transparency operates on uneven ground and certain identity groups bear a heavier cost for being honest, then the burden of openness becomes asymmetrical. This study investigates how AI disclosure statement affects perceptions of writing quality, and whether these effects vary by the author's race and gender. Through a large-scale controlled experiment, both human raters (n = 1,970) and LLM raters (n = 2,520) evaluated a single human-written news article while disclosure statements and author demographics were systematically varied. This approach reflects how both human and algorithmic decisions now influence access to opportunities (e.g., hiring, promotion) and social recognition (e.g., content recommendation algorithms). We find that both human and LLM raters consistently penalize disclosed AI use. However, only LLM raters exhibit demographic interaction effects: they favor articles attributed to women or Black authors when no disclosure is present. But these advantages disappear when AI assistance is revealed. These findings illuminate the complex relationships between AI disclosure and author identity, highlighting disparities between machine and human evaluation patterns.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

What Shapes Writers' Decisions to Disclose AI Use?

Have you ever read a blog or social media post and suspected that it was written--at least in part--by artificial intelligence (AI)? While transparently acknowledging contributors to writing is generally valued, why some writers choose to disclose or withhold AI involvement remains unclear. In this work, we ask what factors shape writers' decisions to disclose their AI use as a starting point to effectively advocate for transparency. To shed light on this question, we synthesize study findings and theoretical frameworks in human-AI interaction and behavioral science. Concretely, we identify and curate a list of factors that could affect writers' decisions regarding disclosure for human-AI co-created content.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Design Opportunities for Explainable AI Paraphrasing Tools: A User Study with Non-native English Speakers

We investigate how non-native English speakers (NNESs) interact with diverse information aids to assess and select AI-generated paraphrases. We develop ParaScope, an AI paraphrasing assistant that integrates diverse information aids, such as back-translation, explanations, and usage examples, and logs user interaction data. Our in-lab study with 22 NNESs reveals that user preferences for information aids vary by language proficiency, with workflows progressing from global to more detailed information. While back-translation was the most frequently used aid, it was not a decisive factor in suggestion acceptance; users combined multiple information aids to make informed decisions. Our findings demonstrate the potential of explainable AI paraphrasing tools to enhance NNESs' confidence, autonomy, and writing efficiency, while also emphasizing the importance of thoughtful design to prevent information overload. Based on these findings, we offer design implications for explainable AI paraphrasing tools that support NNESs in making informed decisions when using AI writing systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

How Problematic Writer-AI Interactions (Rather than Problematic AI) Hinder Writers' Idea Generation

Writing about a subject enriches writers' understanding of that subject. This cognitive benefit of writing -- known as constructive learning -- is essential to how students learn in various disciplines. However, does this benefit persist when students write with generative AI writing assistants? Prior research suggests the answer varies based on the type of AI, e.g., auto-complete systems tend to hinder ideation, while assistants that pose Socratic questions facilitate it. This paper adds an additional perspective. Through a case study, we demonstrate that the impact of genAI on students' idea development depends not only on the AI but also on the students and, crucially, their interactions in between. Students who proactively explored ideas gained new ideas from writing, regardless of whether they used auto-complete or Socratic AI assistants. Those who engaged in prolonged, mindless copyediting developed few ideas even with a Socratic AI. These findings suggest opportunities in designing AI writing assistants, not merely by creating more thought-provoking AI, but also by fostering more thought-provoking writer-AI interactions.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

"I never would have thought to say this": Example-Based Exploration to Balance Scientists' Writing Preferences with Public Science Communication Strategies

Public-facing science communication is important in garnering interest, engagement, and trust in science. Social media platforms provide scientists with opportunities to reach broader audiences, yet many resist adopting social media writing strategies because the strategies conflict with traditional science writing norms and personal preferences. To address this gap, we first evaluate readers' preferences for strategies such as examples, walkthroughs, and personal language. While many readers enjoyed science narratives that used these strategies, their effectiveness was nuanced and context-dependent, varying by topic and individual preference. Building on these findings, we design a system that uses contrastive examples to help scientists adopt and integrate these social media science writing strategies. In a user study with scientists, we found that presenting contrastive examples helped writers critically evaluate different narrative options, balance competing goals, and gain confidence in adapting social media writing strategies to fit both their topic and audience.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Building Machines that Learn and Think with People

What do we want from machine intelligence? We envision machines that are not just tools for thought, but partners in thought: reasonable, insightful, knowledgeable, reliable, and trustworthy systems that think with us. Current artificial intelligence (AI) systems satisfy some of these criteria, some of the time. In this Perspective, we show how the science of collaborative cognition can be put to work to engineer systems that really can be called ``thought partners,'' systems built to meet our expectations and complement our limitations. We lay out several modes of collaborative thought in which humans and AI thought partners can engage and propose desiderata for human-compatible thought partnerships. Drawing on motifs from computational cognitive science, we motivate an alternative scaling path for the design of thought partners and ecosystems around their use through a Bayesian lens, whereby the partners we construct actively build and reason over models of the human and world.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Evaluating Human-Language Model Interaction

Many real-world applications of language models (LMs), such as writing assistance and code autocomplete, involve human-LM interaction. However, most benchmarks are non-interactive in that a model produces output without human involvement. To evaluate human-LM interaction, we develop a new framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (HALIE), that defines the components of interactive systems and dimensions to consider when designing evaluation metrics. Compared to standard, non-interactive evaluation, HALIE captures (i) the interactive process, not only the final output; (ii) the first-person subjective experience, not just a third-party assessment; and (iii) notions of preference beyond quality (e.g., enjoyment and ownership). We then design five tasks to cover different forms of interaction: social dialogue, question answering, crossword puzzles, summarization, and metaphor generation. With four state-of-the-art LMs (three variants of OpenAI's GPT-3 and AI21 Labs' Jurassic-1), we find that better non-interactive performance does not always translate to better human-LM interaction. In particular, we highlight three cases where the results from non-interactive and interactive metrics diverge and underscore the importance of human-LM interaction for LM evaluation.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Towards Explainable AI Writing Assistants for Non-native English Speakers

We highlight the challenges faced by non-native speakers when using AI writing assistants to paraphrase text. Through an interview study with 15 non-native English speakers (NNESs) with varying levels of English proficiency, we observe that they face difficulties in assessing paraphrased texts generated by AI writing assistants, largely due to the lack of explanations accompanying the suggested paraphrases. Furthermore, we examine their strategies to assess AI-generated texts in the absence of such explanations. Drawing on the needs of NNESs identified in our interview, we propose four potential user interfaces to enhance the writing experience of NNESs using AI writing assistants. The proposed designs focus on incorporating explanations to better support NNESs in understanding and evaluating the AI-generated paraphrasing suggestions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Passively Addressed Robotic Morphing Surface (PARMS) Based on Machine Learning

Reconfigurable morphing surfaces provide new opportunities for advanced human-machine interfaces and bio-inspired robotics. Morphing into arbitrary surfaces on demand requires a device with a sufficiently large number of actuators and an inverse control strategy that can calculate the actuator stimulation necessary to achieve a target surface. The programmability of a morphing surface can be improved by increasing the number of independent actuators, but this increases the complexity of the control system. Thus, developing compact and efficient control interfaces and control algorithms is a crucial knowledge gap for the adoption of morphing surfaces in broad applications. In this work, we describe a passively addressed robotic morphing surface (PARMS) composed of matrix-arranged ionic actuators. To reduce the complexity of the physical control interface, we introduce passive matrix addressing. Matrix addressing allows the control of independent actuators using only 2N control inputs, which is significantly lower than control inputs required for traditional direct addressing. Our control algorithm is based on machine learning using finite element simulations as the training data. This machine learning approach allows both forward and inverse control with high precision in real time. Inverse control demonstrations show that the PARMS can dynamically morph into arbitrary pre-defined surfaces on demand. These innovations in actuator matrix control may enable future implementation of PARMS in wearables, haptics, and augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR).

cs.RO↗

arXiv2022

On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models

AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

TempLM: Distilling Language Models into Template-Based Generators

While pretrained language models (PLMs) have greatly improved text generation, they have also been known to produce unfaithful or inappropriate content. In contrast, classic template-based systems provide strong guarantees of faithfulness at the cost of fluency. We propose TempLM, which achieves the best of both worlds by distilling a PLM into a template-based generator. On the E2E and SynthBio data-to-text datasets, we show that TempLM is more faithful than the original PLM and is more fluent than prior template systems. Notably, on an out-of-domain evaluation, TempLM reduces a finetuned BART model's unfaithfulness rate from 83% to 0%. In a human study, we find that TempLM's templates substantially improve upon human-written ones in BERTScore.

cs.CL↗