cs.LGMar 27, 2026

Selective Deficits in LLM Mental Self-Modeling in a Behavior-Based Test of Theory of Mind

Authors: Christopher Ackerman

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

The ability to represent oneself and others as agents with knowledge, intentions, and belief states that guide their behavior - Theory of Mind - is a human universal that enables us to navigate - and manipulate - the social world. It is supported by our ability to form mental models of ourselves and others. Its ubiquity in human affairs entails that LLMs have seen innumerable examples of it in their training data and therefore may have learned to mimic it, but whether they have actually learned causal models that they can deploy in arbitrary settings is unclear. We therefore develop a novel experimental paradigm that requires that subjects form representations of the mental states of themselves and others and act on them strategically rather than merely describe them. We test a wide range of leading open and closed source LLMs released since 2024, as well as human subjects, on this paradigm. We find that 1) LLMs released before mid-2025 fail at all of our tasks, 2) more recent LLMs achieve human-level performance on modeling the cognitive states of others, and 3) even frontier LLMs fail at our self-modeling task - unless afforded a scratchpad in the form of a reasoning trace. We further demonstrate cognitive load effects on other-modeling tasks, offering suggestive evidence that LLMs are using something akin to limited-capacity working memory to hold these mental representations in mind during a single forward pass. Finally, we explore the mechanisms by which reasoning models succeed at the self- and other-modeling tasks, and show that they readily engage in strategic deception.

More in this topic

Theory of Mind

Theory of Mind studies how people and AI infer others’ beliefs, goals, and knowledge to predict behavior and coordinate interaction.

See all 83 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Aug 26, 2026

Assessing mentalization in humans and large language models

Mentalization - the ability to infer others' beliefs and intentions to guide one's own choices - is a key cognitive function underlying human social interactions. Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate behaviour consistent with humans on theory-of-mind tasks, yet whether these models can guide adaptive behaviour through mentalization is unknown. Here we use two economic games with cognitive computational modeling to uncover the latent strategies underlying mentalization in LLMs. We tested individual LLM agents across four model families, DeepSeek, GPT-4.1, GPT-5 and Gemini 2.0 Flash (N = 2,099), against opponents of varying sophistication and examined whether a prompting strategy designed to elicit strategic reasoning improved performance. We benchmarked results against human participants (N = 251) as a comparative measure. Across both games, LLMs showed clear behavioural and computational signatures of mentalizing that differed markedly by model provider and size. Strategic prompting generally improved performance by inducing more sophisticated reasoning, yet the extent of the benefit differed across the two tasks. Last, GPT-5 agents flexibly adapted their recursive depth of reasoning to increasingly sophisticated opponents, demonstrating superior performance to human participants. Collectively, we demonstrate different capacities for mentalization across LLMs, and highlight cognitive computational modeling as a formal method for assessing comparative intelligence across humans and machines.

Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov +2

Centre for Human Brain Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. · Institute for Mental Health, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. +3

Social ReasoningTheory of Mind
AskPDF
Feb 20, 2026

Do Large Language Models Possess a Theory of Mind? A Comparative Evaluation Using the Strange Stories Paradigm

The study explores whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities -- specifically, the ability to infer others' beliefs, intentions, and emotions from text. Given that LLMs are trained on language data without social embodiment or access to other manifestations of mental representations, their apparent social-cognitive reasoning raises key questions about the nature of their understanding. Are they capable of robust mental-state attribution indistinguishable from human ability in its output, or do their outputs merely reflect superficial pattern completion? To address this question, we tested five LLMs and compared their performance to that of human controls using an adapted version of a text-based tool widely used in human ToM research. The test involves answering questions about the beliefs, intentions, and emotions of story characters. The results revealed a performance gap between the models. Earlier and smaller models were strongly affected by the number of relevant inferential cues available and, to some extent, were also vulnerable to the presence of irrelevant or distracting information in the texts. In contrast, GPT-4o demonstrated high accuracy and strong robustness, performing comparably to humans even in the most challenging conditions. This work contributes to ongoing debates about the cognitive status of LLMs and the boundary between genuine understanding and statistical approximation.

Anna Babarczy, Andras Lukacs, Peter Vedres +1

Institute of General and Hungarian Linguistics, Research Centre for Linguistics · Department of Cognitive Science, Faculty of Natural Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics · Institute of Mathematics, Eötvös Lóránd University

Theory of MindSocial ReasoningLLM Evaluation
AskPDF
Aug 31, 2026

Evaluating and Improving LLM Self-Modeling

We study self-modeling: an LLM's ability to answer questions about its own behavior. We focus on verifiable behavioral questions, such as whether a prompt edit would change the model's final answer. To measure this capability, we introduce a benchmark that tests diverse types of self-modeling questions. Current models show non-trivial but limited self-modeling skill, and make systematic mistakes on simple counterfactual questions about their own behavior. To improve self-modeling skill, we develop a scalable synthetic-data pipeline that produces self-modeling training data, and show that reinforcement-learning can improve aggregate self-modeling skill across three open-source model families with some transfer to held-out tasks. These gains, however, do not seem to constitute introspection consistently: improved self-modeling may not arise from privileged access to the model's internal decision process.

Siqi Zeng, Andre N. Assis, Rowan Wang

University of Illinois · Constellation · Anthropic

LLM EvaluationLanguage Model IntrospectionLanguage Model Self-AssessmentMetacognition in Language Models
AskPDF