Cited by 2Design Education and PracticeUsability and User Interface DesignIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

Improving Designer Learning in Design Space Exploration by Adapting to the Designer’s Learning Goals

Virós-i-Martin, Antoni, Selva, Daniel·2022·Volume 3B: 48th Design Automation Conference (DAC)

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

Crossref · 10.1115/detc2022-89207

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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