Traces of Social Competence in Large Language Models

Tom Kouwenhoven, Michiel van der Meer, Max van Duijn · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Mar 4, 2026, 3:19 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 14, 2026, 6:21 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

The False Belief Test (FBT) has been the main method for assessing Theory of Mind (ToM) and related socio-cognitive competencies. For Large Language Models (LLMs), the reliability and explanatory potential of this test have remained limited due to issues like data contamination, insufficient model details, and inconsistent controls. We address these issues by testing 17 open-weight models on a balanced set of 192 FBT variants (Trott et al. 2023) using Bayesian Logistic regression to identify how model size and post-training affect socio-cognitive competence. We find that scaling model size benefits performance, but not strictly. A cross-over effect reveals that explicating propositional attitudes (X thinks) fundamentally alters response patterns. Instruction tuning partially mitigates this effect, but further reasoning-oriented finetuning amplifies it. In a case study analysing social reasoning ability throughout OLMo 2 training, we show that this cross-over effect emerges during pre-training, suggesting that models acquire stereotypical response patterns tied to mental-state vocabulary that can outweigh other scenario semantics. Finally, vector steering allows us to isolate a think vector as the causal driver of observed FBT behaviour.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.