How Do People Revise Inconsistent Beliefs? Examining Belief Revision in Humans with User Studies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09977v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 17:52:33 GMT
• Title: How Do People Revise Inconsistent Beliefs? Examining Belief Revision in Humans with User Studies
• Authors: Stylianos Loukas Vasileiou, Antonio Rago, Maria Vanina Martinez, William Yeoh,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 8.208446026336407
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Understanding how humans revise their beliefs in light of new information is crucial for developing AI systems which can effectively model, and thus align with, human reasoning. While theoretical belief revision frameworks rely on a set of principles that establish how these operations are performed, empirical evidence from cognitive psychology suggests that people may follow different patterns when presented with conflicting information. In this paper, we present three comprehensive user studies showing that people consistently prefer explanation-based revisions, i.e., those which are guided by explanations, that result in changes to their belief systems that are not necessarily captured by classical belief change theory. Our experiments systematically investigate how people revise their beliefs with explanations for inconsistencies, whether they are provided with them or left to formulate them themselves, demonstrating a robust preference for what may seem non-minimal revisions across different types of scenarios. These findings have implications for AI systems designed to model human reasoning or interact with humans, suggesting that such systems should accommodate explanation-based, potentially non-minimal belief revision operators to better align with human cognitive processes.

Related papers

• AI Through the Human Lens: Investigating Cognitive Theories in Machine Psychology [0.0]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit human-like cognitive patterns under four established frameworks from psychology.<n>Our findings reveal that these models often produce coherent narratives, show susceptibility to positive framing, exhibit moral judgments aligned with Liberty/Oppression concerns, and demonstrate self-contradictions tempered by extensive rationalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-22T19:58:19Z)
• Human-Aware Belief Revision: A Cognitively Inspired Framework for Explanation-Guided Revision of Human Models [4.2356833681644055]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-29T16:20:51Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Crystal: Introspective Reasoners Reinforced with Self-Feedback [118.53428015478957]
  We propose a novel method to develop an introspective commonsense reasoner, Crystal. To tackle commonsense problems, it first introspects for knowledge statements related to the given question, and subsequently makes an informed prediction that is grounded in the previously introspected knowledge. Experiments show that Crystal significantly outperforms both the standard supervised finetuning and chain-of-thought distilled methods, and enhances the transparency of the commonsense reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T21:23:58Z)
• Explanations, Fairness, and Appropriate Reliance in Human-AI Decision-Making [10.049226270783562]
  We study the effects of feature-based explanations on distributive fairness of AI-assisted decisions. Our findings show that explanations influence fairness perceptions, which, in turn, relate to humans' tendency to adhere to AI recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-23T19:10:59Z)
• 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)
• Machine Explanations and Human Understanding [31.047297225560566]
  Explanations are hypothesized to improve human understanding of machine learning models. empirical studies have found mixed and even negative results. We show how human intuitions play a central role in enabling human understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T19:00:38Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• The Who in XAI: How AI Background Shapes Perceptions of AI Explanations [61.49776160925216]
  We conduct a mixed-methods study of how two different groups--people with and without AI background--perceive different types of AI explanations. We find that (1) both groups showed unwarranted faith in numbers for different reasons and (2) each group found value in different explanations beyond their intended design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-28T17:32:04Z)
• On the Interaction of Belief Bias and Explanations [4.211128681972148]
  We provide an overview of belief bias, its role in human evaluation, and ideas for NLP practitioners on how to account for it. We show that conclusions about the highest performing methods change when introducing such controls, pointing to the importance of accounting for belief bias in evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T12:49:42Z)
• 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)
• A general framework for scientifically inspired explanations in AI [76.48625630211943]
  We instantiate the concept of structure of scientific explanation as the theoretical underpinning for a general framework in which explanations for AI systems can be implemented. This framework aims to provide the tools to build a "mental-model" of any AI system so that the interaction with the user can provide information on demand and be closer to the nature of human-made explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T10:32:21Z)

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.