Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

The Social World Model Evaluation Gap

Summary

An audit of 113 works published from 1999 to 2026 finds that evaluations of social world models rarely test predictions of other people's responses directly: only 9 primary evaluations measure a real person's response to a selected action, and only 2 also compare an explicit response forecast with that response, while a full-text check of 25 language-model works found no experiment meeting those conditions.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Denglin Jiang (New York University), Annie Wang (New York University)
The Social World Model Evaluation Gap
Report an error

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

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 8 Oct 2026]

Title:The Social World Model Evaluation Gap

View a PDF of the paper titled The Social World Model Evaluation Gap, by Denglin Jiang (New York University) and 1 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:A negotiation assistant can reach a good deal without accurately predicting the other person's response. We ask whether evaluations of social world models test that prediction directly. We audit 113 works published from 1999 to 2026. 9 primary evaluations measure a real person's response to an action selected by the system or experimenter. Only 2 also compare an explicit response forecast with that response. Their predictors use information available when the action is chosen, and the evaluated responses were excluded from fitting; both randomize the intervention. A separate full-text check of 25 language-model works finds no experiment meeting these conditions. The other evaluations test current-state inference, task success, or prediction from recorded actions. We propose a 1-step negotiation experiment that separates these questions. The findings describe the audited sample, not the prevalence of this evaluation gap across the field.

Comments: Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on Foundation Models for Temporal Systems: From Forecasting to World Modeling (FMTS). 4 pages of main text plus references and appendix. Code and data: this https URL

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.33014 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.33014v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.33014

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Denglin Jiang [view email] [v1] Thu, 8 Oct 2026 04:18:33 UTC (110 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled The Social World Model Evaluation Gap, by Denglin Jiang (New York University) and 1 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

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?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • The audit covers 113 works; 9 primary evaluations measure a real person's response, and only 2 compare an explicit forecast with the actual response
  • Both qualifying studies use only information available at action-selection time, exclude evaluated responses from fitting, and randomize the intervention
  • A full-text check of 25 language-model works found no experiment meeting these conditions; other evaluations test current-state inference, task success, or prediction from recorded actions
  • The authors propose a 1-step negotiation experiment to separate these questions and caution that findings describe the audited sample only

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