Upasana Biswas

Vardhan Palod, Upasana Biswas, Subbarao Kambhampati

Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are increasingly used for critical tasks, yet they provide no guarantees about the correctness of their solutions. Users must decide whether to trust the model's answer, aided by reasoning traces, their summaries, or post-hoc generated explanations. These reasoning traces, despite evidence that they are neither faithful representations of the model's computations nor necessarily semantically meaningful, are often interpreted as provenance explanations. It is unclear whether explanations or reasoning traces help users identify when the AI is incorrect, or whether they simply persuade users to trust the AI regardless. In this paper, we take a user-centered approach and develop an evaluation protocol to study how different explanation types affect users' ability to judge the correctness of AI-generated answers and engender false trust in the users. We conduct a between-subject user study, simulating a setting where users do not have the means to verify the solution and analyze the false trust engendered by commonly used LLM explanations - reasoning traces, their summaries and post-hoc explanations. We also test a contrastive dual explanation setting where we present arguments for and against the AI's answer. We find that reasoning traces and post-hoc explanations are persuasive but not informative: they increase user acceptance of LLM predictions regardless of their correctness. In contrast, dual explanation is the only condition that genuinely improves users' ability to distinguish correct from incorrect AI outputs.

Upasana Biswas, Durgesh Kalwar, Subbarao Kambhampati et al.

Mutual adaptation is a central challenge in human-AI teaming, as humans naturally adjust their strategies in response to an AI agent's behavior. Existing approaches attempt to approximate human behavior by diversifying training partners; however, these partners are typically static and fail to capture the adaptive nature of human teammates. When agents are trained jointly in standard multi-agent settings, they often converge to opaque coordination strategies that work only with their co-trained partners, leading to poor generalization. To model adaptive human behavior, we formulate human-AI teaming as an Interactive Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (I-POMDP). We propose NestRL, a nested training regime that learns the solution to a finite-level I-POMDP by training agents at each level against adaptive agents from the level below. This exposes agents to adaptive behavior while preventing emergence of opaque coordination strategies. We provide theoretical analysis showing that NestRL agents avoid convergence to partner-specific strategies, and validate this empirically in the Overcooked domain against state-of-the-art baselines. NestRL achieves higher task performance with both unseen adaptive agents and real human teammates, while exhibiting significantly greater adaptability over the course of interaction.

Subbarao Kambhampati, Kaya Stechly, Karthik Valmeekam et al.

Intermediate token generation (ITG), where a model produces output before the solution, has been proposed as a method to improve the performance of language models on reasoning tasks. These intermediate tokens have been called "reasoning traces" or even "thoughts" -- implicitly anthropomorphizing the model, implying these tokens resemble steps a human might take when solving a challenging problem.In this paper, we present evidence that this anthropomorphization isn't a harmless metaphor, and instead is quite dangerous -- it confuses the nature of these models and how to use them effectively, and leads to questionable research.

Siddhant Bhambri, Upasana Biswas, Subbarao Kambhampati

Question Answering (QA) poses a challenging and critical problem, particularly in today's age of interactive dialogue systems such as ChatGPT, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot, etc. where users demand both accuracy and transparency in the model's outputs. Since smaller language models (SLMs) are computationally more efficient but often under-perform compared to larger models, Knowledge Distillation (KD) methods allow for finetuning these smaller models to improve their final performance. Lately, the intermediate tokens or the so called `reasoning' traces produced by Chain-of-Thought (CoT) or by reasoning models such as DeepSeek R1 are used as a training signal for KD. However, these reasoning traces are often verbose and difficult to interpret or evaluate. In this work, we aim to address the challenge of evaluating the faithfulness of these reasoning traces and their correlation with the final performance. To this end, we employ a KD method leveraging rule-based problem decomposition. This approach allows us to break down complex queries into structured sub-problems, generating interpretable traces whose correctness can be readily evaluated, even at inference time. Specifically, we demonstrate this approach on Open Book QA, decomposing the problem into a Classification step and an Information Retrieval step, thereby simplifying trace evaluation. Our SFT experiments with correct and incorrect traces on the CoTemp QA, Microsoft Machine Reading Comprehension QA, and Facebook bAbI QA datasets reveal the striking finding that correct traces do not necessarily imply that the model outputs the correct final solution. Similarly, we find a low correlation between correct final solutions and intermediate trace correctness. These results challenge the implicit assumption behind utilizing reasoning traces for improving SLMs' final performance via KD.

Upasana Biswas, Vardhan Palod, Siddhant Bhambri et al.

State-of-the-art methods for Human-AI Teaming and Zero-shot Cooperation focus on task completion, i.e., task rewards, as the sole evaluation metric while being agnostic to how the two agents work with each other. Furthermore, subjective user studies only offer limited insight into the quality of cooperation existing within the team. Specifically, we are interested in understanding the cooperative behaviors arising within the team when trained agents are paired with humans -- a problem that has been overlooked by the existing literature. To formally address this problem, we propose the concept of constructive interdependence -- measuring how much agents rely on each other's actions to achieve the shared goal -- as a key metric for evaluating cooperation in human-agent teams. We interpret interdependence in terms of action interactions in a STRIPS formalism, and define metrics that allow us to assess the degree of reliance between the agents' actions. We pair state-of-the-art agents HAT with learned human models as well as human participants in a user study for the popular Overcooked domain, and evaluate the task reward and teaming performance for these human-agent teams. Our results demonstrate that although trained agents attain high task rewards, they fail to induce cooperative behavior, showing very low levels of interdependence across teams. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that teaming performance is not necessarily correlated with task reward, highlighting that task reward alone cannot reliably measure cooperation arising in a team.