Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source3 min read

Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues

Summary

Proposes a framework to identify four types of mental model discrepancies in team dialogues: unsupported beliefs, false beliefs, belief contradictions, and omissions. Experiments show predictive signals in these patterns.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Katharine Kowalyshyn, Matthias Scheutz
Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.03149] Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues

Skip to main content

Learn about arXiv becoming an independent nonprofit.

We gratefully acknowledge support from the Simons Foundation, member institutions, and all contributors. Donate

> cs > arXiv:2605.03149

Help | Advanced Search

All fields Title Author Abstract Comments Journal reference ACM classification MSC classification Report number arXiv identifier DOI ORCID arXiv author ID Help pages Full text

Search

GO

quick links

Login

Help Pages

About

-->

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

arXiv:2605.03149 (cs)

[Submitted on 4 May 2026]

Title:Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues

Authors:Katharine Kowalyshyn, Matthias Scheutz

View a PDF of the paper titled Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues, by Katharine Kowalyshyn and Matthias Scheutz

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Humans typically use natural language to update teammates on task states. Since not all updates are communicated, discrepancies arise between the team members' mental models that negatively affect overall team performance. How can we categorize such discrepancies? Do misalignments detected in team dialogue predict future mental model misalignments? Traditional shared mental model (SMM) assessment methods rely on retrospective expert coding that cannot capture real-time coordination dynamics. We propose a framework to identify and categorize four types of mental model discrepancies: unsupported beliefs, false beliefs, belief contradictions, and omissions, all of which can naturally emerge in team dialogues. Using dialogues from twenty dyad teams performing collaborative object identification tasks across four sequential levels, we demonstrate that these discrepancy patterns contain predictive signals. Averaging historical discrepancy counts achieves meaningful prediction accuracy using uniform weighting as an exploratory baseline, with differential predictability across discrepancy types.

Comments: Accepted to Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2026

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2605.03149 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2605.03149v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.03149

Focus to learn more

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Katharine Kowalyshyn [view email] [v1] Mon, 4 May 2026 20:42:16 UTC (3,470 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Are you with me? A Framework for Detecting Mental Model Discrepancies in Task-Based Team Dialogues, by Katharine Kowalyshyn and Matthias Scheutz

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

export BibTeX citation Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

×

loading...

Data provided by:

Bookmark

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

About

Help

contact arXivClick here to contact arXiv Contact

subscribe to arXiv mailingsClick here to subscribe Subscribe

Copyright

Privacy Policy

Web Accessibility Assistance

arXiv Operational Status

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Defines four types of mental model discrepancies
  • Validated with 20 dyad team dialogues
  • Discrepancy counts predict future coordination issues

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.