The state space contains the position and velocity ofthe ego-vehicle and nearby vehicles. The action space consists offiveactions: accelerate, brake,idle, steer left, and steer right.

The evolution of mathematics has been guided in part by interestingness. From researchers choosing which problems to tackle next, to students deciding which ones to engage with, people's choices are often guided by judgments about how interesting or challenging problems are likely to be. As AI systems, such as LLMs, increasingly participate in mathematics with people -- whether for advanced research or education -- it becomes important to understand how well their judgments align with human ones. Our work examines this alignment through two empirical studies of human and LLM assessment of mathematical interestingness and difficulty, spanning a range of mathematical experience. We study two groups: participants from a crowdsourcing platform and International Math Olympiad competitors. We show that while many LLMs appear to broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they mostly do not capture the distribution observed in human judgments. Moreover, most LLMs only somewhat align with why humans find certain math problems interesting, showing weak correlation with human-selected interestingness rationales. Together, our findings highlight both the promises and limitations of current LLMs in capturing human interestingness judgments for mathematical AI thought partnerships.

Word-level saliency explanations ("heat maps over words") are often used to communicate feature-attribution in text-based models. Recent studies found that superficial factors such as word length can distort human interpretation of the communicated saliency scores. We conduct a user study to investigate how the marking of a word's neighboring words affect the explainee's perception of the word's importance in the context of a saliency explanation. We find that neighboring words have significant effects on the word's importance rating. Concretely, we identify that the influence changes based on neighboring direction (left vs. right) and a-priori linguistic and computational measures of phrases and collocations (vs. unrelated neighboring words). Our results question whether text-based saliency explanations should be continued to be communicated at word level, and inform future research on alternative saliency explanation methods.

While a lot of research in explainable AI focuses on producing effective explanations, less work is devoted to the question of how people understand and interpret the explanation. In this work, we focus on this question through a study of saliency-based explanations over textual data. Feature-attribution explanations of text models aim to communicate which parts of the input text were more influential than others towards the model decision. Many current explanation methods, such as gradient-based or Shapley value-based methods, provide measures of importance which are well-understood mathematically. But how does a person receiving the explanation (the explainee) comprehend it? And does their understanding match what the explanation attempted to communicate? We empirically investigate the effect of various factors of the input, the feature-attribution explanation, and visualization procedure, on laypeople's interpretation of the explanation. We query crowdworkers for their interpretation on tasks in English and German, and fit a GAMM model to their responses considering the factors of interest. We find that people often mis-interpret the explanations: superficial and unrelated factors, such as word length, influence the explainees' importance assignment despite the explanation communicating importance directly. We then show that some of this distortion can be attenuated: we propose a method to adjust saliencies based on model estimates of over- and under-perception, and explore bar charts as an alternative to heatmap saliency visualization. We find that both approaches can attenuate the distorting effect of specific factors, leading to better-calibrated understanding of the explanation.