Autonomous scientific discovery systems can generate large numbers of research ideas, experiments, and manuscripts with minimal human intervention. As these systems become increasingly capable, scientists require effective mechanisms to monitor output quality, identify recurring failure modes, understand research evolution, and prioritize promising discoveries for review. We present AIMC, a visual analytics framework for human oversight of autonomous scientific discovery. AIMC combines semantic embeddings, automated weakness extraction, temporal analysis, and interactive visualizations to support the exploration of AI-generated research artifacts. We demonstrate the framework through a case study of the papers generated by an autonomous AI Scientist (FARS), together with their associated review feedback. Our analysis reveals recurring methodological weaknesses, evolving research themes, domain-specific differences in quality, and a small set of highly novel papers that warrant deeper human inspection. These findings illustrate how visual analytics can support transparency, diagnosis, and human AI collaboration in emerging autonomous scientific discovery workflows.
Michael Correll, Lucy Havens, Mahsan Nouranics.HC cs.AI
The persuasive power of data visualizations can go awry: for instance, in an explainable AI (XAI) context, visualizations can produce over-trust of predictive models. In this paper, we use a crowdsourced study to show that providing accurate (but superfluous or irrelevant) data in a model explanation can, in fact, result in unjustified trust and other positive beliefs about a model, even when the model is patently discriminatory and unfair. Our results suggest that XAI designers and developers need to consider the implicit or explicit rhetorics of their work, and beware of the potential of visualizations to imbue models with unearned trust.
Reinforcement learning is usually introduced through the Bellman update, yet the equation often remains abstract to undergraduates: they watch policy arrows converge but rarely observe how each value is computed or why an action is chosen. We present Q-Learning Lab, a single-file, browser-based, bilingual (Thai/English) tool for teaching tabular Q-learning that requires no installation. Beyond the usual gridworld visualization - color-coded Q-values and policy arrows on a $5 \times 5$ world - the tool exposes a live Bellman-substitution panel showing the numeric update at every step, and logs each transition, including the full pre-action Q-row, the greedy-versus-random decision under $\varepsilon$-greedy exploration, and wall-collision events, into an exportable trace. The central contribution is a learn-export-analyze loop: learners run their own agent, export the complete trace as CSV, and analyze it themselves, producing learning curves, value heatmaps, and visitation maps, turning a passive demonstration into a source of learner-generated data for reflective inquiry. We validate the tool without human-subject data through three complementary evaluations: (i) correctness of the learned values and policy against a value-iteration ground truth on the identical MDP; (ii) hyperparameter sweeps over $α$, $γ$, and $\varepsilon$ showing that every pedagogical claim the tool makes is reproducible; and (iii) a reward-editing study that uses the ground-truth optimal policy to separate two behaviorally identical but diagnostically opposite failure modes - an exploration failure versus genuine reward misspecification - that a single edited reward can produce. We also compare the tool against existing gridworld visualizers, describe its grounding in learning-by-doing pedagogy, and include a 50-minute lesson plan. The tool and all experiment code are openly available.
Interactive visualizations support conceptual understanding in undergraduate mathematics, but building them has required programming expertise most instructors lack. Using a design-based research approach, we develop, deploy, and evaluate a six-phase workflow (Foundation, Customization, Mathematical Depth, Application, Accessibility, Pedagogical Control) that uses generative AI to build WCAG~2.2 Level~AA compliant visualizations without programming. The six phases structure every prompt, scaffold the AI's code generation, and define where human verification is applied. We ask whether the structure reliably yields correct and accessible tools, whether it runs both backward (reverse-engineering prompts from a finished tool) and forward (generating a tool from a plain-language idea), and what verification each phase requires. Across four deployed tools spanning calculus, multivariable calculus, and differential equations, we evaluate mathematical correctness against closed forms, accessibility through automated and manual screen-reader testing, and the errors that recurred. The structure produces structurally complete first-pass tools, but human verification remains mandatory at every phase: each output must be checked for mathematical correctness, accessibility, and pedagogical fit before the next phase begins. The workflow is platform-independent and serves both instructors and students.
Lisa Schirch, Beth Goldbergcs.HC cs.AI cs.CY cs.ET cs.GR
Traditional visual data storytelling relies on binary graphics that depict two simplified groups in conflict. This can increase political polarization by oversimplifying intra-group disagreements and erasing ambiguity and shared ideas or values. This can inadvertently foster "us versus them" thinking. Intentional, pluralistic design choices for AI-enabled digital platforms can produce visualizations that emphasize nuance, opinion distribution, and intergroup commonalities. To demonstrate this potential, we examine deliberative technologies that map high-dimensional opinion spaces and highlight areas of both consensus and dissensus. The paper highlights the We the People deliberation conducted by Jigsaw and the Napolitan Institute in September 2025, which engaged over 2,400 Americans across all 435 congressional districts in an AI-supported, asynchronous dialogue regarding freedom and equality. By utilizing AI to synthesize long-form, text-based participant inputs into interactive "opinion landscapes," the initiative provided an alternative format for pluralistic data storytelling that humanized diverse viewpoints and revealed hidden areas of substantial broad consensus. The paper concludes that shifting from divisive, contrast-heavy visual frameworks to distribution-focused, interactive models represents a highly scalable, low-cost intervention capable of bridging perceptual gaps and cultivating a more resilient, collaborative democratic culture.