Rapidly developing such mental models is especially critical in ad hoc human-machine teaming, where agents do not have a priori knowledge of others' decision-making strategies.

Narratives about artificial intelligence (AI) entangle autonomy, the capacity to self-govern, with sentience, the capacity to sense and feel. AI agents that perform tasks autonomously and companions that recognize and express emotions may activate mental models of autonomy and sentience, respectively, provoking distinct reactions. To examine this possibility, we conducted three pilot studies (N = 374) and four preregistered vignette experiments describing an AI as autonomous, sentient, both, or neither (N = 2,702). Activating a mental model of sentience increased general mind perception (cognition and emotion) and moral consideration more than autonomy, but autonomy increased perceived threat more than sentience. Sentience also increased perceived autonomy more than vice versa. Based on a within-paper meta-analysis, sentience changed reactions more than autonomy on average. By disentangling different mental models of AI, we can study human-AI interaction with more precision to better navigate the detailed design of anthropomorphized AI and prompting interfaces.

Building upon Salas et al.'s "Big Five" teamwork model, we operationalize five core components as independently configurable mechanisms: shared mental models, team leadership, team orientation, trust networks, and mutual monitoring. Our architecture dynamically recruits 2-4 specialist agents and employs structured four-phase deliberation with adaptive component selection. Evaluation across eight medical benchmarks encompassing 11,545 questions demonstrates TeamMedAgents achieves 77.63% overall accuracy (text-based: 81.30%, vision-language: 66.60%). Systematic ablation studies comparing three single-agent baselines (Zero-Shot, Few-Shot, CoT) against individual teamwork components reveal task-specific optimization patterns: shared mental models excel on knowledge tasks, trust mechanisms improve differential diagnosis, while comprehensive integration degrades performance. Adaptive component selection yields 2-10 percentage point improvements over strongest baselines, with 96.2% agent convergence validating structured coordination effectiveness. TeamMedAgents establishes principled methodology for translating human teamwork theory into multi-agent systems, demonstrating that evidence-based collaboration patterns enhance AI performance in safety-critical domains through modular component design and selective activation strategies.

LLMs can be unpredictable, as even slight alterations to the prompt can cause the output to change in unexpected ways. Thus, the ability of models to accurately explain their behavior is critical, especially in high-stakes settings. One approach for evaluating explanations is counterfactual simulatability, how well an explanation allows users to infer the model's output on related counterfactuals. Counterfactual simulatability has been previously studied for yes/no question answering tasks. We provide a general framework for extending this method to generation tasks, using news summarization and medical suggestion as example use cases. We find that while LLM explanations do enable users to better predict LLM outputs on counterfactuals in the summarization setting, there is significant room for improvement for medical suggestion. Furthermore, our results suggest that the evaluation for counterfactual simulatability may be more appropriate for skill-based tasks as opposed to knowledge-based tasks.

For a machine learning system to gain user trust, either its reasoning should to be transparent [Rudin, 2019, Freitas, 2014, Lakkaraju et al., 2016, Letham et al., 2015], or it should be capable of justifying

Computational notebooks have become popular for Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), augmented by LLM-based code generation and result interpretation. Effective LLM assistance hinges on selecting informative context -- the minimal set of cells whose code, data, or outputs suffice to answer a prompt. As notebooks grow long and messy, users can lose track of the mental model of their analysis. They thus fail to curate appropriate contexts for LLM tasks, causing frustration and tedious prompt engineering. We conducted a formative study (n=6) that surfaced challenges in LLM context selection and mental model maintenance. Therefore, we introduce NoteEx, a JupyterLab extension that provides a semantic visualization of the EDA workflow, allowing analysts to externalize their mental model, specify analysis dependencies, and enable interactive selection of task-relevant contexts for LLMs. A user study (n=12) against a baseline shows that NoteEx improved mental model retention and context selection, leading to more accurate and relevant LLM responses.

The quickly growing popularity of AI companions poses risks to mental health, personal wellbeing, and social relationships. Past work has identified many individual factors that can drive human-companion interaction, but we know little about how these factors interact and evolve over time. In Study 1, we surveyed AI companion users (N = 303) to map the psychological pathway from users' mental models of the agent to parasocial experiences, social interaction, and the psychological impact of AI companions. Participants' responses foregrounded multiple interconnected variables (agency, parasocial interaction, and engagement) that shape AI companionship. In Study 2, we conducted a longitudinal study with a subset of participants (N = 110) using a new generic chatbot. Participants' perceptions of the generic chatbot significantly converged to perceptions of their own companions by Week 3. These results suggest a longitudinal model of AI companionship development and demonstrate an empirical method to study human-AI companionship.

Artificial intelligence has become integral to organizational decision - making and while research has explored many facets of this human - AI collaboration, the focus has mainly been on designing the AI agent(s) and the way the collaboration is set up -- generally assuming a human decision - maker to be "fixed". However, it has largely been neglected that decision - makers' mental models evolve through their continuous interaction with AI systems. This paper addresses this gap by conceptualizing how the design of human - AI collaboration influences the development of three complementary and interdependent mental models necessary for this collaboration. We develop an integrated socio - technical framework that identifies the mechanisms driving the mental model evolution: data contextualization, reasoning transparency, and performance feedback.