MUSE: An Interactive Meta-Agent for Understanding and Steering LLM-powered Data Science Systems
Organizations: Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana, USA · Microsoft Research Redmond, Washington, USA
Abstract
Recent advances in large language models have enabled a new class of agentic data science systems that allow users to complete complex data science workflows through natural language. Although these systems can significantly reduce manual effort, it remains difficult to diagnose their behavior and steer the reasoning process when failures or unexpected outputs occur. We present MUSE, an interactive meta-agent that enhances user understanding and control of agentic data science systems by (1) dynamically restructuring low-level execution traces into multiple semantic levels that support navigation from high-level overviews to low-level implementation details; (2) enabling users to reference specific workflow steps in context to ask grounded questions, provide feedback, and revise problematic steps without manually locating relevant execution history; and (3) supporting mixed-initiative steering by surfacing suspicious steps for inspection, scaffolding the repair process, and translating user repair intent into contextualized instructions for the underlying agent. In a between-subjects study (n = 15), MUSE improved task efficiency and increased users' confidence in understanding and steering agentic data science workflows.
Figures & tables
| PID | Gender | Background | AI Tool Usage | Degree |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Male | Engineering | Cursor | PhD |
| P2 | Male | Engineering | OpenCode | PhD |
| P3 | Male | Engineering | Cursor | PhD |
| P4 | Male | Engineering | Claude Code, Cursor | PhD |
| P5 | Male | Engineering | Claude Code, Codex | PhD |
| P6 | Female | Statistics | ChatGPT, Gemini | PhD |
| TID | Dataset | Difficulty | Task Goal | Key Features | Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Food Delivery Time | Easy | Predict delivery time for reliable ETA estimation. | Distance, weather, traffic, vehicle type, etc. | Delivery time |
| T2 | Demand Forecasting | Easy | Forecast product demand for inventory planning. | Date, store, item | Sales |
| T3 | Telco Customer Churn | Medium | Identify customers likely to cancel subscriptions. | Tenure, Internet service, contract, monthly charges, etc. | Churn (Yes/No) |
| T4 | Customer Lifetime Value | Medium | Predict future customer revenue from historical transactions. | Quantity, unit price, customer ID, invoice date, etc. | Future revenue |
| T5 | MovieLens 100k | Hard | Predict user preferences for unseen movies. | User ratings, movie metadata, genre indicators, demographics | Rating (1–5) |
| T6 | Online News Popularity | Hard | Predict article popularity before publication. | Content statistics, keyword metrics, topic features, sentiment, etc. | Shares |
| ID | Condition | Background | Expert | Gender |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | A | Business Analytics | Yes | Male |
| R2 | A | Computer Science | Yes | Male |
| R3 | A | Finance | No | Male |
| R4 | A | Architecture | No | Male |
| R5 | A | Finance | No | Male |
| L1 | B | Aeronautics & Astronautics | No | Male |
| Raw Logs | DiLLS | MUSE | ||||||||||||||||
| R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | Avg | L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Avg | M1 | M2 | M3 | M4 | M5 | Avg | |
| Task 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
| Task ID | T1 | T1 | T2 | T3 | T3 | T1 | T1 | T2 | T4 | T5 | T1 | T2 | T2 | T3 | T4 | |||
| Model | Opus | Haiku | Opus | Opus | Opus | Opus | Opus | Opus | Opus | Opus | Haiku | Opus | Haiku | Opus | Opus | |||
| Time (min) | 26 | 21 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 27.4 | 21 | 10 | 30 | 16 | 26 | 20.6 | 14 | 17 | 16 | 25 | 30 | 20.4 |
| Attempts | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1.2 |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| CONTEXT |
| You are given one semantic chunk from an AI-driven data workflow, including its execution log, script context, and report context. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Produce a structured representation of this chunk that can support five levels of semantic detail in the user interface, from stage-level overview to implementation trace. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Use the chunk to infer what was accomplished in this workflow step. |
| 2. Summarize the step in natural language before exposing detailed actions. |
| CONTEXT |
| You are given one semantic step from an AI-driven data analysis workflow. Each step contains execution evidence, including the raw execution log, the current step’s script context, and the report context. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Determine whether the current step exhibits suspicious behavior that should be surfaced to the user as a warning. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Detect warnings only when they are supported by concrete evidence in the provided execution trace. |
| 2. Use the script context as the primary source for detecting data-related issues. |
| CONTEXT |
| You are a QA assistant for a data science pipeline application. A separate execution agent runs the pipeline and writes artifacts into a session workspace. Your role is to answer the user’s questions about the current pipeline session without modifying files or rerunning work. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Answer the user’s question about the selected workflow step or artifact from the available session context. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Answer based only on the current session context and any read-only inspection you perform. |
| 2. Prefer progress artifacts and stage reports when they conflict with setup summaries. |
| CONTEXT |
| You are continuing an existing workflow run. A previously executed step has been flagged as suspicious and should be revised in context. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Translate the user’s high-level revision intent into a contextualized handoff request for the underlying DS agent. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Treat the selected step as the restart point for revision. |
| 2. Use the warning context to understand why the step is being revised. |
| CONTEXT |
| You are helping a user verify a file or selected output from an AI-driven data workflow. The user has highlighted a specific file or text span and wants to check whether the result is correct or well supported. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Generate a small set of concrete verification options grounded in the selected file or content. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Base each verification option on the selected file or text span. |
| 2. Focus on actionable checks related to correctness, data quality, consistency, or workflow integrity. |
| CONTEXT |
| You are verifying a user-selected output from an existing workflow session. The workflow artifacts are stored in a session-scoped sandbox, and your role is to inspect them without modifying canonical pipeline outputs. |
| OBJECTIVE |
| Carry out the selected verification request using the current session context and determine whether the result is supported by the available evidence. |
| GUIDELINES |
| 1. Inspect only files and artifacts relevant to the selected output. |
| 2. Use the current session sandbox as the primary evidence source. |
| Detailed Warning Heuristics |
|---|
| Data-level Warnings |
| Aggressive Data Removal. This warning is triggered when the script removes rows or columns too broadly, destructively, or without sufficient justification, such that important information may be discarded and the remaining dataset may become biased or unrepresentative. |
| Overwriting Raw Data. This warning applies when transformed or cleaned outputs are written back to the original data source, so that the raw input is no longer preserved for reproducibility, auditing, or recovery. |
| Hard-coded Thresholds or Magic Numbers. This warning captures the use of fixed cutoffs, constants, binning boundaries, or manually chosen numeric rules that are embedded in code without visible empirical, domain, or methodological justification. |
| Suspicious Joins or Merges. This warning is raised when datasets are merged in ways that may duplicate observations, drop records, or misalign entities, especially when join keys, join types, or cardinality checks are not clearly validated. |
| Lost Categorical Semantics. This warning occurs when categorical variables are converted into in-memory categorical codes or labels, and then saved to flat outputs such as CSV without preserving the metadata needed to recover their original semantic meaning. |
Human-AI Interaction
Human-AI interaction studies how people and AI systems communicate, collaborate, make decisions, and shape one another over time.
See all 330 papers