Trust the AI, Doubt Yourself: The Effect of Urgency on Self-Confidence in Human-AI Interaction

Studies show that interactions with an AI system fosters trust in human users towards AI. An often overlooked element of such interaction dynamics is the (sense of) urgency when the human user is prompted by an AI agent, e.g., for advice or guidance. In this paper, we show that although the presence of urgency in human-AI interactions does not affect the trust in AI, it may be detrimental to the human user's self-confidence and self-efficacy. In the long run, the loss of confidence may lead to performance loss, suboptimal decisions, human errors, and ultimately, unsustainable AI systems. Our evidence comes from an experiment with 30 human participants. Our results indicate that users may feel more confident in their work when they are eased into the human-AI setup rather than exposed to it without preparation. We elaborate on the implications of this finding for software engineers and decision-makers.

Complex Model Transformations by Reinforcement Learning with Uncertain Human Guidance

Model-driven engineering problems often require complex model transformations (MTs), i.e., MTs that are chained in extensive sequences. Pertinent examples of such problems include model synchronization, automated model repair, and design space exploration. Manually developing complex MTs is an error-prone and often infeasible process. Reinforcement learning (RL) is an apt way to alleviate these issues. In RL, an autonomous agent explores the state space through trial and error to identify beneficial sequences of actions, such as MTs. However, RL methods exhibit performance issues in complex problems. In these situations, human guidance can be of high utility. In this paper, we present an approach and technical framework for developing complex MT sequences through RL, guided by potentially uncertain human advice. Our framework allows user-defined MTs to be mapped onto RL primitives, and executes them as RL programs to find optimal MT sequences. Our evaluation shows that human guidance, even if uncertain, substantially improves RL performance, and results in more efficient development of complex MTs. Through a trade-off between the certainty and timeliness of human advice, our method takes a step towards RL-driven human-in-the-loop engineering methods.

Opinion-Guided Reinforcement Learning

Human guidance is often desired in reinforcement learning to improve the performance of the learning agent. However, human insights are often mere opinions and educated guesses rather than well-formulated arguments. While opinions are subject to uncertainty, e.g., due to partial informedness or ignorance about a problem, they also emerge earlier than hard evidence could be produced. Thus, guiding reinforcement learning agents through opinions offers the potential for more performant learning processes, but comes with the challenge of modeling and managing opinions in a formal way. In this article, we present a method to guide reinforcement learning agents through opinions. To this end, we provide an end-to-end method to model and manage advisors' opinions. To assess the utility of the approach, we evaluate it with synthetic and human advisors, at different levels of uncertainty, and under multiple advise strategies. Our results indicate that opinions, even if uncertain, improve the performance of reinforcement learning agents, resulting in higher rewards, more efficient exploration, and a better reinforced policy. Although we demonstrate our approach in a simplified topological running example, our approach is applicable to complex problems with higher dimensions as well.