Zeinabsadat Saghi

Sadra Sabouri, Zeinabsadat Saghi, Run Huang et al.

Advances in AI agent capabilities have outpaced users' ability to meaningfully oversee their execution. AI agents can perform sophisticated, multi-step knowledge work autonomously from start to finish, yet this process remains effectively inaccessible during execution, often buried within large volumes of intermediate reasoning and outputs: by the time users receive the output, all underlying decisions have already been made without their involvement. This lack of transparency leaves users unable to examine the agent's assumptions, identify errors before they propagate, or redirect execution when it deviates from their intent. The stakes are particularly high in spreadsheet environments, where process and artifact are inseparable. Each decision the agent makes is recorded directly in cells that belong to and reflect on the user. We introduce Pista, a spreadsheet AI agent that decomposes execution into auditable, controllable actions, providing users with visibility into the agent's decision-making process and the capacity to intervene at each step. A formative study (N = 8) and a within-subjects summative evaluation (N = 16) comparing Pista to a baseline agent demonstrated that active participation in execution influenced not only task outcomes but also users' comprehension of the task, their perception of the agent, and their sense of role within the workflow. Users identified their own intent reflected in the agent's actions, detected errors that post-hoc review would have failed to surface, and reported a sense of co-ownership over the resulting output. These findings indicate that meaningful human oversight of AI agents in knowledge work requires not improved post-hoc review mechanisms, but active participation in decisions as they are made.

Zeinabsadat Saghi, Daria Riabukhina, Olubukola Akinbami et al.

Cognitive fatigue, which transitions from focused attention to inexact responses, can cause catastrophic failures in high-stakes environments, yet current black-box assessment techniques ignore the brain's non-Markovian and time-varying interdependent properties, limiting real-time phase transition detection. We develop a fractional dynamical networks-based machine learning (FDNML) framework using coupled fractional-order differential equations to capture brain signal interdependencies and detect cognitive fatigue transitions in real-time. Multifractal properties of brain activity exhibit distinct generalized fractal dimension signatures across fatigue levels, with Wasserstein distances of 0.10, 0.13, and 0.08 between states 0-1, 1-2, and 0-2, respectively. The framework achieves 93.33% classification accuracy and 95% AUROC, enabling the prevention of performance degradation through early detection of neural state transitions.

Zeinabsadat Saghi, Run Huang, Souti Chattopadhyay

Creativity is fundamentally human. As AI takes on more of the generative work that once required human imagination, despite documented limitations in creative ability, a critical question emerges: How does GenAI affect users' creativity? Through a within-subject study followed by retrospective interviews with (N=20) programmers, we investigated the impact of LLMs on participants' process of creative thinking in programming and the creativity of generated solutions. Across two conditions (LLM-assisted vs. unassisted), participants using LLMs had significantly shorter idea-generation periods (p=0.0004), leading to fewer creative moments (p=0.002). Qualitative analysis of participants' interactions and interviews revealed four different human-LLM collaboration modes supporting various problem-solving strategies. However, a comparative analysis of the generated solutions shows that while LLMs can help generate more correct and functional code, their solutions contain roughly the same number of ideas as participant-generated ones. Based on our findings, we discuss design implications and considerations for effectively using LLMs to support user creativity.

Sadra Sabouri, Zeinabsadat Saghi, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber et al.

Prior work on AI-assisted information evaluation has largely focused on what AI systems communicate, comparing explanation types and formats, with responses predominantly cast in directive rhetoric where the system delivers a verdict and the user passively accepts it. While debate-style interactions have recently shown promise in prompting critical evaluation over deference, the rhetorical patterns that structure AI responses and how they might induce reflection, uncertainty, or independent reasoning remain largely unexamined. To address this, we investigated eight rhetorical patterns known to induce contemplation: Intentional Misleading, Interpretive Alternative, Scaffold Explanation, Triggering Distrust, Information Distortion, Alternative Framing, Socratic Questioning, and an Oracle baseline. Through a within-subject study with n=98 participants on a hint-on-demand fact verification task, we observed preliminary evidence that Scaffold Explanation were associated with the highest accuracy gains, and encouraging deeper reflection. Surprisingly, the adversarial conditions also improved accuracy modestly. Participants preferred Alternative Framing most and Interpretive Alternative least, largely due to the latter's perceived time cost. We discuss the implications of designing conversational agents with varied rhetorical styles and the trade-offs among user performance, satisfaction, and contemplation.