InMind: Evaluating LLMs in Capturing and Applying Individual Human Reasoning Styles

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16072v3
• Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2025 03:54:25 GMT
• Title: InMind: Evaluating LLMs in Capturing and Applying Individual Human Reasoning Styles
• Authors: Zizhen Li, Chuanhao Li, Yibin Wang, Qi Chen, Diping Song, Yukang Feng, Jianwen Sun, Jiaxin Ai, Fanrui Zhang, Mingzhu Sun, Kaipeng Zhang,
• Abstract summary: Social deduction games provide a natural testbed for evaluating individualized reasoning styles.<n>We introduce InMind, a cognitively grounded evaluation framework designed to assess whether LLMs can capture and apply personalized reasoning styles.<n>As a case study, we apply InMind to the game Avalon, evaluating 11 state-of-the-art LLMs.
• Score: 39.025684190110276
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: LLMs have shown strong performance on human-centric reasoning tasks. While previous evaluations have explored whether LLMs can infer intentions or detect deception, they often overlook the individualized reasoning styles that influence how people interpret and act in social contexts. Social deduction games (SDGs) provide a natural testbed for evaluating individualized reasoning styles, where different players may adopt diverse but contextually valid reasoning strategies under identical conditions. To address this, we introduce InMind, a cognitively grounded evaluation framework designed to assess whether LLMs can capture and apply personalized reasoning styles in SDGs. InMind enhances structured gameplay data with round-level strategy traces and post-game reflections, collected under both Observer and Participant modes. It supports four cognitively motivated tasks that jointly evaluate both static alignment and dynamic adaptation. As a case study, we apply InMind to the game Avalon, evaluating 11 state-of-the-art LLMs. General-purpose LLMs, even GPT-4o frequently rely on lexical cues, struggling to anchor reflections in temporal gameplay or adapt to evolving strategies. In contrast, reasoning-enhanced LLMs like DeepSeek-R1 exhibit early signs of style-sensitive reasoning. These findings reveal key limitations in current LLMs' capacity for individualized, adaptive reasoning, and position InMind as a step toward cognitively aligned human-AI interaction.

Related papers

• Evaluating Alignment of Behavioral Dispositions in LLMs [15.282965130762648]
  We focus on behavioral dispositions that shape responses in social contexts.<n>We introduce a framework to study how closely the dispositions expressed by LLMs align with those of humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T19:59:12Z)
• UniCog: Uncovering Cognitive Abilities of LLMs through Latent Mind Space Analysis [69.50752734049985]
  A growing body of research suggests that the cognitive processes of large language models (LLMs) differ fundamentally from those of humans.<n>We propose UniCog, a unified framework that analyzes LLM cognition via a latent mind space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-25T16:19:00Z)
• Beyond Survival: Evaluating LLMs in Social Deduction Games with Human-Aligned Strategies [54.08697738311866]
  Social deduction games like Werewolf combine language, reasoning, and strategy.<n>We curate a high-quality, human-verified multimodal Werewolf dataset containing over 100 hours of video, 32.4M utterance tokens, and 15 rule variants.<n>We propose a novel strategy-alignment evaluation that leverages the winning faction's strategies as ground truth in two stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:33:30Z)
• Noise, Adaptation, and Strategy: Assessing LLM Fidelity in Decision-Making [0.030586855806896043]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science simulations.<n>We propose a process-oriented evaluation framework to examine how LLM agents adapt under different levels of external guidance and human-derived noise.<n>We find that LLMs, by default, converge on stable and conservative strategies that diverge from observed human behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T18:55:53Z)
• How LLMs Comprehend Temporal Meaning in Narratives: A Case Study in Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs [13.822169295436177]
  We investigate how large language models (LLMs) process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies.<n>Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect.<n>These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-18T18:28:35Z)
• Beyond Nash Equilibrium: Bounded Rationality of LLMs and humans in Strategic Decision-making [33.2843381902912]
  Large language models are increasingly used in strategic decision-making settings.<n>We compare LLMs and humans using experimental paradigms adapted from behavioral game-theory research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T04:43:54Z)
• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [75.26829371493189]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Is your LLM trapped in a Mental Set? Investigative study on how mental sets affect the reasoning capabilities of LLMs [8.920202114368843]
  We present an investigative study on how Mental Sets influence the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.<n>Mental Sets refers to the tendency to persist with previously successful strategies, even when they become inefficient.<n>We compare the performance of LLM models like Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct and GPT-4o in the presence of mental sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-21T02:29:15Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)

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.