aiqbench analysis
This research introduces ProSE, a novel framework for AI assistants that accounts for "bounded rationality" by treating user proposals as probes to learn evaluation constraints rather than just task interventions. The study demonstrates that optimizing solely for acceptance rates leads to suboptimal performance when users face high evaluation costs, whereas the proposed Bayes-adaptive planner balances value gain with informative probing. By formalizing this trade-off, the work advances the understanding of how AI systems can adapt to realistic human limitations in sequential collaboration tasks.
Propose to Learn, Learn to Propose: Evaluability-Aware Assistance under Bounded Rationality
arXiv:2609.02242v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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 \textsc{ProSE-Plan}, a depth-2 Bayes-adaptive planner that scores proposals by possible responses and response-induced posterior beliefs. In controlled graph simulations, \textsc{ProSE-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.
Abstract: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 \textsc{ProSE-Plan}, a depth-2 Bayes-adaptive planner that scores proposals by possible responses and response-induced posterior beliefs. In controlled graph simulations, \textsc{ProSE-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.
28 pages, 7 figures, 8 tables. Under review
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)
arXiv:2609.02242 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.02242v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.02242 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 316 words
Related coverage

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · Sep 24, 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026
[Paper] Distillation for Incrimination and Distillation for Capabilities
LessWrong · Oct 9, 2026