NICE: A Theory-Grounded Diagnostic Benchmark for Social Intelligence of LLMs

As large language models move from isolated task solving toward long-term service in human environments, they require social intelligence: the ability to infer mental states, track social relations, reason over norms, and adapt behavior under context. This report presents Zhijing, an integrated framework for measuring, internalizing, and grounding social intelligence. For measurement, we introduce SoMBench, a psychology-grounded benchmark spanning 3 primary dimensions, 17 secondary dimensions, and 71 task paradigms. It controls question format, narrative perspective, and context length across 284 shared scenarios and 3,481 expert-verified instances. Evaluation of 20 representative LLMs reveals substantial headroom: the best model achieves only 72.08% overall accuracy, and none of the 17 secondary dimensions reaches the 90% near-ceiling band. For internalization, we develop Zing, a diagnosis-driven training recipe combining supervised fine-tuning, on-policy distillation, and rubric-based reinforcement learning. Across five social-cognition benchmarks, Zing consistently outperforms its base models, with Zing-27B-Stage2 achieving the best average score and Zing-32B-Stage2 remaining competitive with DeepSeek-V4-Pro. For deployment-time grounding, we build Actio, a harness-controlled inference architecture that routes four typed supports into reasoning: PRISM for procedural guidance, Starling for runtime mental-state representation, SAGE for reusable experience, and gated RAG for external social and normative knowledge. Across five base models and three benchmarks, the full harness improves 14 of 15 model-benchmark pairs and is best or tied for best in 8, demonstrating the effectiveness of typed runtime support. Together, these results show that socially intelligent LLMs require coordinated advances in evaluation, parametric internalization, and deployment-time grounding.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by capability-oriented or traditional safety evaluations. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a framework for evaluating whether LLMs align with user welfare in social interactions, including whether they encourage harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 user inputs and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 22 recent LLMs, we find that even the strongest models, Claude-Opus-4.7 and GPT-5.5, violate 30.7% and 27.2% of checks, respectively. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting that these failures are persistent social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone.

Emotional intelligence (EI), the ability to perceive, understand, and respond appropriately to others' emotional states, is central to human communication, and increasingly important to assess as LLMs assume conversational roles in everyday life. Existing EI benchmarks rely on synthetic prompts, single-turn cases, or third-party annotation. These approaches do not directly measure how models infer and respond to a participant's emotional state over the course of a real conversation. We introduce AttuneBench, a benchmark grounded in 200 genuine multi-turn human-model conversations in which participants conversed with anonymized LLMs and provided turn-by-turn annotations of their emotional state, the model's behavior, and their preferred responses. Across 11 evaluated models, we find that model rankings on emotion recognition, behavioral classification, preference prediction, and judged response quality are largely independent, indicating that emotionally intelligent behavior decomposes into separable capabilities. Preference alignment and response-quality judgments are substantially more model-discriminating than emotion-label accuracy. These results indicate that emotionally intelligent behavior requires predicting what kind of response a specific user wants in context, a distinction that aggregate scoring can obscure and that single-turn or synthetic formats cannot directly capture across turns. AttuneBench provides a framework for assessing each of these capabilities and for diagnosing model-specific strengths and failure modes in emotionally salient conversation.