Human-Aware Belief Revision: A Cognitively Inspired Framework for Explanation-Guided Revision of Human Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19238v2
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 14:17:58 GMT
• Title: Human-Aware Belief Revision: A Cognitively Inspired Framework for Explanation-Guided Revision of Human Models
• Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, William Yeoh,
• Abstract summary: We introduce Human-Aware Belief Revision, a cognitively-inspired framework for modeling human belief revision dynamics. We conduct two human-subject studies to empirically evaluate our framework under real-world scenarios. Our findings support our hypotheses and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies, offering some guidance for developing more effective human-aware AI systems.
• Score: 4.2356833681644055
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Traditional belief revision frameworks often rely on the principle of minimalism, which advocates minimal changes to existing beliefs. However, research in human cognition suggests that people are inherently driven to seek explanations for inconsistencies, thereby striving for explanatory understanding rather than minimal changes when revising beliefs. Traditional frameworks often fail to account for these cognitive patterns, relying instead on formal principles that may not reflect actual human reasoning. To address this gap, we introduce Human-Aware Belief Revision, a cognitively-inspired framework for modeling human belief revision dynamics, where given a human model and an explanation for an explanandum, revises the model in a non-minimal way that aligns with human cognition. Finally, we conduct two human-subject studies to empirically evaluate our framework under real-world scenarios. Our findings support our hypotheses and provide insights into the strategies people employ when resolving inconsistencies, offering some guidance for developing more effective human-aware AI systems.

Related papers

• How Do People Revise Inconsistent Beliefs? Examining Belief Revision in Humans with User Studies [8.208446026336407]
  We show that people consistently prefer explanation-based revisions over classical belief change theory.<n>These findings have implications for AI systems designed to model human reasoning or interact with humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T17:52:33Z)
• Modeling Human Beliefs about AI Behavior for Scalable Oversight [15.535954576226207]
  As AI systems grow more capable, human feedback becomes increasingly unreliable. This raises the problem of scalable oversight: How can we supervise AI systems that exceed human capabilities? We propose to model the human evaluator's beliefs about the AI system's behavior to better interpret the human's feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T17:39:55Z)
• The Superalignment of Superhuman Intelligence with Large Language Models [63.96120398355404]
  We discuss the concept of superalignment from the learning perspective to answer this question. We highlight some key research problems in superalignment, namely, weak-to-strong generalization, scalable oversight, and evaluation. We present a conceptual framework for superalignment, which consists of three modules: an attacker which generates adversary queries trying to expose the weaknesses of a learner model; a learner which will refine itself by learning from scalable feedbacks generated by a critic model along with minimal human experts; and a critic which generates critics or explanations for a given query-response pair, with a target of improving the learner by criticizing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T10:34:06Z)
• Dual Thinking and Perceptual Analysis of Deep Learning Models using Human Adversarial Examples [5.022336433202968]
  The perception of dual thinking in vision requires images where inferences from intuitive and logical processing differ. We introduce an adversarial dataset to provide evidence for the dual thinking framework in human vision. Our study also addresses a major criticism of using classification models as computational models of human vision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T05:50:34Z)
• Conceptual and Unbiased Reasoning in Language Models [98.90677711523645]
  We propose a novel conceptualization framework that forces models to perform conceptual reasoning on abstract questions. We show that existing large language models fall short on conceptual reasoning, dropping 9% to 28% on various benchmarks. We then discuss how models can improve since high-level abstract reasoning is key to unbiased and generalizable decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-30T00:53:53Z)
• Interpreting Pretrained Language Models via Concept Bottlenecks [55.47515772358389]
  Pretrained language models (PLMs) have made significant strides in various natural language processing tasks. The lack of interpretability due to their black-box'' nature poses challenges for responsible implementation. We propose a novel approach to interpreting PLMs by employing high-level, meaningful concepts that are easily understandable for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T20:41:18Z)
• RealBehavior: A Framework for Faithfully Characterizing Foundation Models' Human-like Behavior Mechanisms [45.97077960079147]
  We introduce a framework, RealBehavior, which is designed to characterize the humanoid behaviors of models faithfully. Our findings suggest that a simple application of psychological tools cannot faithfully characterize all human-like behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T12:58:17Z)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [60.244412212130264]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models. Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)
• Towards Explaining Subjective Ground of Individuals on Social Media [28.491401997248527]
  This research proposes a neural model that learns subjective grounds of individuals and accounts for their judgments on situations of others posted on social media. Using simple attention modules as well as taking one's previous activities into consideration, we empirically show that our model provides human-readable explanations of an individual's subjective preference in judging social situations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-18T00:29:05Z)
• Modeling Human Behavior Part I -- Learning and Belief Approaches [0.0]
  We focus on techniques which learn a model or policy of behavior through exploration and feedback. Next generation autonomous and adaptive systems will largely include AI agents and humans working together as teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-13T07:33:49Z)
• Bongard-LOGO: A New Benchmark for Human-Level Concept Learning and Reasoning [78.13740873213223]
  Bongard problems (BPs) were introduced as an inspirational challenge for visual cognition in intelligent systems. We propose a new benchmark Bongard-LOGO for human-level concept learning and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-02T03:19:46Z)
• Machine Common Sense [77.34726150561087]
  Machine common sense remains a broad, potentially unbounded problem in artificial intelligence (AI) This article deals with the aspects of modeling commonsense reasoning focusing on such domain as interpersonal interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T13:59:47Z)
• Cognitive Argumentation and the Suppression Task [1.027974860479791]
  This paper addresses the challenge of modeling human reasoning, within a new framework called Cognitive Argumentation. The framework relies on cognitive principles, based on empirical and theoretical work in Cognitive Science, to adapt a general and abstract framework of computational argumentation from AI. We argue that Cognitive Argumentation provides a coherent and cognitively adequate model for human conditional reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-24T10:30:39Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.