Improving Designer Learning in Design Space Exploration by Adapting to the Designer’s Learning Goals
Abstract
Design space exploration is a design method by which the designer tries to learn important information about a design problem (e.g., main design trade-offs, sensitivities, common features among good designs) to help them make better design decisions. This paper presents preliminary results of a study characterizing the effects on a designer’s learning of an AI assistant that adapts to the designer’s goals during design space exploration. Specifically, we compare the designer’s learning when the AI assistant adapts to explicit learning goals shared by the designer versus when it does not adapt. The AI assistant used for the study is Daphne, which helps engineers design Earth observation satellite systems. The designer’s learning process is modeled as an iterative hypothesis generation and testing process. First, the designer shares with Daphne a certain learning goal in the form of a hypothesis (e.g., designs with feature F are more likely to be on the Pareto front). Then, Daphne adapts to this goal by searching for more designs that have the feature being tested and showing the user the extent to which the data supports their hypothesis. The participants in the preliminary study are N = 10 students from Texas A&M University. We ask each participant to design earth observation satellite constellations to meet a set of requirements while trying to learn about the design problem. The results show that participants with the adaptive AI assistant consistently score higher on their learning about the design task compared to the baseline design assistant as measured by a post-task test. A negative effect is observed on task performance with the adaptive AI assistant condition due to a smaller number of design creation actions, which is consistent with findings from previous studies. Recommendations are provided for the design of similar future AI assistants based on the results of this study. Finally, a power study is done to set a goal for statistical validity of the study.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
AI systems that generate iterative, learner goal-based hypotheses may facilitate targeted feedback, improving language comprehension and use.
“AI systems that generate iterative, learner goal-based hypotheses may facilitate targeted feedback, improving language comprehension and use [199].”
From Leveraging AI in E-Learning: Personalized Learning and Adaptive Assessment through Cognitive Neuropsychology—A Systematic Analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [199]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Halkiopoulos, C., & Gkintoni, E. (2024) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics13183762 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
“Vir ó s-i-Martin and Selva (2022) [199] - Characterize the effects on a designer’s learning when an AI assistant adapts to the designer’s goals during design space exploration.”
On (Human) Learning in Design Space Exploration and the Impact of AI Assistants
Selva, D. (2026) · Insight · doi:10.1002/inst.70065
Self-citation
- Authors
- Virós-i-Martin, A., & Selva, D.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University , College Station, Texas, United States
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Venue
- Volume 3B: 48th Design Automation Conference (DAC)
- Published
- 2022-08-14
- OpenAlex
- W4312230937
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- design space exploration, learning objectives, Daphne, design decision support, design trade-offs, Pareto front
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review