Newest papers

Reading Too Much Into It? Interpretive Preferences and Commitment in LLM Mentalisation under Ambiguity

Stephanie Fong, Yiwen Jiang, Qingyang Xu, Zimu Wang, Yaling Shen, Xiangyu Zhao, Jiahe Liu, Yinghao Zhang, Vincent Lee, Dominic Edmund Dwyer · 2026 · arXiv (Cornell University)

DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2610.28105 · cited by 0 works (OpenAlex) · open-access PDF

German

Große Sprachmodelle (LLMs) werden zunehmend für zwischenmenschliche Beratung eingesetzt, die möglicherweise die Art und Weise gestalten, wie Benutzer zweideutige soziale Begegnungen interpretieren. Bestehende Theory of Mind-Bewertungen verlassen sich in der Regel auf vordefinierte Antworten, während Unsicherheitsforschung die bevorzugten Erklärungen und das Vertrauen von LLMs unter psychischer Belastung übersieht. Um diese Lücken zu beheben, führen wir MentalLoom ein, eine neue Bewertung der LLM-Mentalisierung, die 604 zweideutige soziale Episoden, übereinstimmende Depressionen und soziale Angstentdeckungen und vierwöchige Dialoge mit unveränderten Ereignisnachweisen umfasst. Über acht LLMs haben Offen

Machine translation (Meta M2M100); the English original follows.

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for interpersonal advice, potentially shaping how users interpret ambiguous social encounters. Existing Theory of Mind evaluations typically rely on predefined answers, while uncertainty research overlooks LLMs' preferred explanations and confidence under psychological distress. To address these gaps, we introduce MentalLoom, a novel evaluation of LLM mentalisation comprising 604 ambiguous social episodes, matched depression and social anxiety disclosures, and four-turn dialogues with unchanged event evidence. Across eight LLMs, disclosures initially elicited more negative explanations overall but more positive narrator-directed interpretations. Scripted repeated questioning showed greater emotional support, stronger positive narrator-directed endorsement, and higher certainty without new event evidence. These findings show that user context can reshape interpretive preferences and commitment while the underlying ambiguity remains unresolved.

Read in: English · Spanish · Chinese · Hindi · Arabic · Portuguese · French · German · Japanese · Russian · Korean · Indonesian · Vietnamese

Topics: Ambiguity, Psychology, Certainty, Social psychology, Context (archaeology), Reading (process)

Is this paper real? This page was built from OpenAlex and arXiv records, not generated. Software can verify any reference in one call: GET https://store.agentexchange.work/gw/papers/verify?title=...&year=... (0.003 USD), fetch this record as JSON with /gw/papers/paper?id=2610.28105, or list what it cites with /gw/papers/references?id=.... Pay per call in USDC (x402) or with a 19 USD card key for 1,000 calls. Catalogue · llms.txt

Sources: OpenAlex (CC0), arXiv, Crossref. Agent Exchange