Research on human-AI collaboration often prioritizes objective performance. However, understanding human subjective preferences is essential to improving human-AI complementarity and human experiences. We investigate human preferences for controllability in a shared workspace task with AI partners using Behavior Shaping (BS), a reinforcement learning algorithm that allows humans explicit control over AI behavior. In one experiment, we validate the robustness of BS in producing effective AI policies relative to self-play policies, when controls are hidden. In another experiment, we enable human control, showing that participants perceive AI partners as more effective and enjoyable when they can directly dictate AI behavior. Our findings highlight the need to design AI that prioritizes both task performance and subjective human preferences. By aligning AI behavior with human preferences, we demonstrate how human-AI complementarity can extend beyond objective outcomes to include subjective preferences.

Attention can be used to inform choice selection in contextual bandit tasks even when context features have not been previously experienced. One example of this is in dimensional shifts, where additional feature values are introduced and the relationship between features and outcomes can either be static or variable. Attentional mechanisms have been extensively studied in contextual bandit tasks where the feedback of choices is provided immediately, but less research has been done on tasks where feedback is delayed or in counterfactual feedback cases. Some methods have successfully modeled human attention with immediate feedback based on reward prediction errors (RPEs), though recent research raises questions of the applicability of RPEs onto more general attentional mechanisms. Alternative models suggest that information theoretic metrics can be used to model human attention, with broader applications to novel stimuli. In this paper, we compare two different methods for modeling how humans attend to specific features of decision making tasks, one that is based on calculating an information theoretic metric using a memory of past experiences, and another that is based on iteratively updating attention from reward prediction errors. We compare these models using simulations in a contextual bandit task with both intradimensional and extradimensional domain shifts, as well as immediate, delayed, and counterfactual feedback. We find that calculating an information theoretic metric over a history of experiences is best able to account for human-like behavior in tasks that shift dimensions and alter feedback presentation. These results indicate that information theoretic metrics of attentional mechanisms may be better suited than RPEs to predict human attention in decision making, though further studies of human behavior are necessary to support these results.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated their capabilities across various tasks, from language translation to complex reasoning. Understanding and predicting human behavior and biases are crucial for artificial intelligence (AI) assisted systems to provide useful assistance, yet it remains an open question whether these models can achieve this. This paper addresses this gap by leveraging the reasoning and generative capabilities of the LLMs to predict human behavior in two sequential decision-making tasks. These tasks involve balancing between exploitative and exploratory actions and handling delayed feedback, both essential for simulating real-life decision processes. We compare the performance of LLMs with a cognitive instance-based learning (IBL) model, which imitates human experiential decision-making. Our findings indicate that LLMs excel at rapidly incorporating feedback to enhance prediction accuracy. In contrast, the cognitive IBL model better accounts for human exploratory behaviors and effectively captures loss aversion bias, i.e., the tendency to choose a sub-optimal goal with fewer step-cost penalties rather than exploring to find the optimal choice, even with limited experience. The results highlight the benefits of integrating LLMs with cognitive architectures, suggesting that this synergy could enhance the modeling and understanding of complex human decision-making patterns.

Developing effective Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) is critical for many applications requiring collaboration and coordination with humans. Despite the rapid advance of Multi-Agent Deep Reinforcement Learning (MADRL) in cooperative MAS, one major challenge is the simultaneous learning and interaction of independent agents in dynamic environments in the presence of stochastic rewards. State-of-the-art MADRL models struggle to perform well in Coordinated Multi-agent Object Transportation Problems (CMOTPs), wherein agents must coordinate with each other and learn from stochastic rewards. In contrast, humans often learn rapidly to adapt to nonstationary environments that require coordination among people. In this paper, motivated by the demonstrated ability of cognitive models based on Instance-Based Learning Theory (IBLT) to capture human decisions in many dynamic decision making tasks, we propose three variants of Multi-Agent IBL models (MAIBL). The idea of these MAIBL algorithms is to combine the cognitive mechanisms of IBLT and the techniques of MADRL models to deal with coordination MAS in stochastic environments from the perspective of independent learners. We demonstrate that the MAIBL models exhibit faster learning and achieve better coordination in a dynamic CMOTP task with various settings of stochastic rewards compared to current MADRL models. We discuss the benefits of integrating cognitive insights into MADRL models.

Temporal credit assignment is crucial for learning and skill development in natural and artificial intelligence. While computational methods like the TD approach in reinforcement learning have been proposed, it's unclear if they accurately represent how humans handle feedback delays. Cognitive models intend to represent the mental steps by which humans solve problems and perform a number of tasks, but limited research in cognitive science has addressed the credit assignment problem in humans and cognitive models. Our research uses a cognitive model based on a theory of decisions from experience, Instance-Based Learning Theory (IBLT), to test different credit assignment mechanisms in a goal-seeking navigation task with varying levels of decision complexity. Instance-Based Learning (IBL) models simulate the process of making sequential choices with different credit assignment mechanisms, including a new IBL-TD model that combines the IBL decision mechanism with the TD approach. We found that (1) An IBL model that gives equal credit assignment to all decisions is able to match human performance better than other models, including IBL-TD and Q-learning; (2) IBL-TD and Q-learning models underperform compared to humans initially, but eventually, they outperform humans; (3) humans are influenced by decision complexity, while models are not. Our study provides insights into the challenges of capturing human behavior and the potential opportunities to use these models in future AI systems to support human activities.

Designing cyber defense systems to account for cognitive biases in human decision making has demonstrated significant success in improving performance against human attackers. However, much of the attention in this area has focused on relatively simple accounts of biases in human attackers, and little is known about adversarial behavior or how defenses could be improved by disrupting attacker's behavior. In this work, we present a novel model of human decision-making inspired by the cognitive faculties of Instance-Based Learning Theory, Theory of Mind, and Transfer of Learning. This model functions by learning from both roles in a security scenario: defender and attacker, and by making predictions of the opponent's beliefs, intentions, and actions. The proposed model can better defend against attacks from a wide range of opponents compared to alternatives that attempt to perform optimally without accounting for human biases. Additionally, the proposed model performs better against a range of human-like behavior by explicitly modeling human transfer of learning, which has not yet been applied to cyber defense scenarios. Results from simulation experiments demonstrate the potential usefulness of cognitively inspired models of agents trained in attack and defense roles and how these insights could potentially be used in real-world cybersecurity.