MotiveBench: How Far Are We From Human-Like Motivational Reasoning in Large Language Models?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13065v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 03:18:28 GMT
• Title: MotiveBench: How Far Are We From Human-Like Motivational Reasoning in Large Language Models?
• Authors: Xixian Yong, Jianxun Lian, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xiao Zhou, Xing Xie,
• Abstract summary: MotiveBench consists of 200 rich contextual scenarios and 600 reasoning tasks covering multiple levels of motivation.<n>We conduct experiments on seven popular model families, comparing different scales and versions within each family.<n>The results show that even the most advanced LLMs still fall short in achieving human-like motivational reasoning.
• Score: 43.58975298601617
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted as the core of agent frameworks in various scenarios, such as social simulations and AI companions. However, the extent to which they can replicate human-like motivations remains an underexplored question. Existing benchmarks are constrained by simplistic scenarios and the absence of character identities, resulting in an information asymmetry with real-world situations. To address this gap, we propose MotiveBench, which consists of 200 rich contextual scenarios and 600 reasoning tasks covering multiple levels of motivation. Using MotiveBench, we conduct extensive experiments on seven popular model families, comparing different scales and versions within each family. The results show that even the most advanced LLMs still fall short in achieving human-like motivational reasoning. Our analysis reveals key findings, including the difficulty LLMs face in reasoning about "love & belonging" motivations and their tendency toward excessive rationality and idealism. These insights highlight a promising direction for future research on the humanization of LLMs. The dataset, benchmark, and code are available at https://aka.ms/motivebench.

Related papers

• Artificial Phantasia: Evidence for Propositional Reasoning-Based Mental Imagery in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This study offers a novel approach for benchmarking complex cognitive behavior in artificial systems.<n>We created dozens of novel items of a classic mental imagery task from cognitive psychology.<n>We found that the best LLMs performed significantly above average human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T04:36:12Z)
• Rationality Check! Benchmarking the Rationality of Large Language Models [15.612266760229945]
  We propose the first benchmark for evaluating the omnibus rationality of large language models (LLMs)<n>The benchmark includes an easy-to-use toolkit, extensive experimental results, and analysis that illuminates where LLMs converge and diverge from idealized human rationality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T02:23:56Z)
• MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fables [50.29407048003165]
  We present MORABLES, a human-verified benchmark built from fables and short stories drawn from historical literature.<n>The main task is structured as multiple-choice questions targeting moral inference, with carefully crafted distractors that challenge models to go beyond shallow, extractive question answering.<n>Our findings show that, while larger models outperform smaller ones, they remain susceptible to adversarial manipulation and often rely on superficial patterns rather than true moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T19:06:10Z)
• Human-Aligned Bench: Fine-Grained Assessment of Reasoning Ability in MLLMs vs. Humans [9.315735862658244]
  We propose Human-Aligned Bench, a benchmark for alignment of multimodal reasoning with human performance.<n>We collected 9,794 multimodal questions that solely rely on contextual reasoning, including bilingual (Chinese and English) multimodal questions and pure text-based questions.<n>Extensive experiments on the Human-Aligned Bench reveal notable differences between the performance of current MLLMs in multimodal reasoning and human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T11:41:19Z)
• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories.<n>These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives.<n>Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• PHAnToM: Persona-based Prompting Has An Effect on Theory-of-Mind Reasoning in Large Language Models [25.657579792829743]
  We empirically evaluate how role-playing prompting influences Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities. We propose the mechanism that, beyond the inherent variance in the complexity of reasoning tasks, performance differences arise because of socially-motivated prompting differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T17:34:34Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• The Neuro-Symbolic Inverse Planning Engine (NIPE): Modeling Probabilistic Social Inferences from Linguistic Inputs [50.32802502923367]
  We study the process of language driving and influencing social reasoning in a probabilistic goal inference domain. We propose a neuro-symbolic model that carries out goal inference from linguistic inputs of agent scenarios. Our model closely matches human response patterns and better predicts human judgements than using an LLM alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-25T19:38:01Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)
• Are LLMs the Master of All Trades? : Exploring Domain-Agnostic Reasoning Skills of LLMs [0.0]
  This study aims to investigate the performance of large language models (LLMs) on different reasoning tasks. My findings indicate that LLMs excel at analogical and moral reasoning, yet struggle to perform as proficiently on spatial reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-22T22:53:44Z)
• Structured, flexible, and robust: benchmarking and improving large language models towards more human-like behavior in out-of-distribution reasoning tasks [39.39138995087475]
  We ask how much of human-like thinking can be captured by learning statistical patterns in language alone. Our benchmark contains two problem-solving domains (planning and explanation generation) and is designed to require generalization. We find that humans are far more robust than LLMs on this benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T18:14:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.