mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Propose to Learn, Learn to Propose: Evaluability-Aware Assistance under Bounded Rationality

arXiv 2609.02242 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.HC cs.MAcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI assistants often collaborate by proposing candidate edits, plans, or designs that users evaluate before adoption. Existing assistance methods focus on proposal quality or user-goal inference, often assuming that the user can reliably evaluate any proposal, which can fail in practice because of bounded rationality. We study evaluability-aware proposal planning, where proposals serve both as task interventions and as probes for learning latent preferences and evaluation constraints, where the resulting belief updates then guide later proposals. We formalise this setting as ProSE, a hidden-parameter sequential assistance problem, and instantiate it with a KL-regularised bounded-rational binary response model in which acceptance trades off value gain against a distance-dependent evaluability penalty. Analysing the planning consequence of this likelihood reveals that likely accepted proposals and informative probes need not coincide, which explains why planners that only pursue acceptance systematically underperform. We operationalise ProSE with textscProSE-Plan, a depth-2 Bayes-adaptive planner that scores proposals by possible responses and response-induced posterior beliefs. In controlled graph simulations, textscProSE-Plan improves over evaluability-unaware and myopic baselines when evaluation cost is the bottleneck, and a probe-commit ablation confirms that our approach selects informative proposals that simpler methods miss. Our results thus identify user evaluability as a planning-relevant dimension of AI assistance, complementary to generation quality and preference inference.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

Builds on

23 of 47 references.

References · 23

  1. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
  2. 2016Cooperative Inverse Reinforcement Learningcited by 300
  3. 2022Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Modelscited by 218
  4. 2023Eliciting Human Preferences with Language Modelscited by 92
  5. 2023A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and Challengescited by 75
  6. 2019Asking Easy Questions: A User-Friendly Approach to Active Reward Learningcited by 68
  7. 2020Online Bayesian Goal Inference for Boundedly-Rational Planning Agentscited by 68
  8. 2018Shared Autonomy via Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 66
  9. 2024LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluationcited by 49
  10. 2015Learning the Preferences of Ignorant, Inconsistent Agentscited by 45
  11. 2023When to Show a Suggestion? Integrating Human Feedback in AI-Assisted Programmingcited by 25
  12. 2024AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist Researchcited by 24
11 more
  1. 2015Information-Theoretic Bounded Rationalitycited by 21
  2. 2021Modeling the Mistakes of Boundedly Rational Agents Within a Bayesian Theory of Mindcited by 19
  3. 2025AssistanceZero: Scalably Solving Assistance Gamescited by 10
  4. 2025Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Timecited by 9
  5. 2025Human and Machine: How Software Engineers Perceive and Engage with AI-Assisted Code Reviews Compared to Their Peerscited by 8
  6. 2022Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurscited by 5
  7. 2022Zero-Shot Assistance in Sequential Decision Problemscited by 4
  8. 2024Observation Interference in Partially Observable Assistance Gamescited by 4
  9. 2023Modeling Boundedly Rational Agents with Latent Inference Budgetscited by 3
  10. 2024Cooperative Bayesian Optimization for Imperfect Agentscited by 3
  11. 2025More Than Irrational: Modeling Belief-Biased Agentscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.