Cognitive World Models for Process-Level Social Influence Evaluation
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29495v1
- Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2026 16:49:43 GMT
- Title: Cognitive World Models for Process-Level Social Influence Evaluation
- Abstract summary: textbfCognitive textbfWorld textbfModel textbf(CogWM), an LLM-based user model.<n>CogWM moves social influence dialogue evaluation from terminal judgment to process tracking.
- Score: 12.674232662629898
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Social influence dialogue changes user behavior by altering internal cognitive states. The central evaluation question is whether the user's beliefs, desires, intentions, and emotions measurably change over the course of conversation, a process-oriented criterion that neither surface-level text metrics (BLEU/ROUGE) nor single-score LLM judgments can capture. We propose the \textbf{Cog}nitive \textbf{W}orld \textbf{M}odel \textbf{(CogWM)}, an LLM-based user model that reframes multi-turn dialogue evaluation from ``what did the user say'' to ``how did the user's internal cognitive state evolves.'' CogWM jointly predicts BDI/E cognitive states and user utterances and serves as both a user simulator and an evaluation platform, using a three-tier evaluation framework that covers turn-level fidelity, trajectory-level state dynamics, and task-level composite scoring. Trained via our \textbf{S}ummarize-\textbf{a}nd-\textbf{A}llocate \textbf{(SaA)} annotation pipeline on 150,454 user-turn samples across four social influence scenarios, CogWM achieves 77.6\% emotion accuracy (2.1$\times$ over GPT-5.5). In 3600 multi-agent discrimination trials, it distinguishes six commercial agents by their cognitive influence, with Llama-4-Scout ranking first (CTS +0.233). CogWM moves social influence dialogue evaluation from terminal judgment to process tracking. We have released our code\footnote{\scriptsize Code: https://github.com/lucianma05-create/CogWM} and models\footnote{Model: https://www.modelscope.cn/models/LucianMa/CogWM-14B}.
Related papers
- Enjoy Your Talk: A Human-Centered Benchmark for Multi-Turn Dialogue with Decoupled User Simulation, Target Modeling, and Judging [15.994164469249727]
EYT-Bench is a human-centered benchmark for evaluating large language models.<n> Personas are sampled from public human-curated corpora.<n>State-of-the-art closed and open-source models are statistically close on subjective dimensions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-07-11T18:22:49Z) - Beyond the Assistant Turn: User Turn Generation as a Probe of Interaction Awareness in Language Models [3.9351446512514947]
We show that user-turn generation captures a dimension of LLM behavior, interaction awareness, that is unexplored and invisible with current assistant-only benchmarks.<n>Our results show that user-turn generation captures a dimension of LLM behavior, interaction awareness, that is unexplored and invisible with current assistant-only benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-04-02T17:57:29Z) - One Battle After Another: Probing LLMs' Limits on Multi-Turn Instruction Following with a Benchmark Evolving Framework [51.50565654314582]
Large language models can follow users' instructions throughout a dialogue spanning multiple topics.<n>Existing benchmarks are often limited to a fixed number of turns, making them susceptible to saturation and failing to account for the user's interactive experience.<n>We propose a framework for assessing multi-turn instruction-following ability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-05T14:39:59Z) - Mind the Gap! Static and Interactive Evaluations of Large Audio Models [55.87220295533817]
Large Audio Models (LAMs) are designed to power voice-native experiences.<n>This study introduces an interactive approach to evaluate LAMs and collect 7,500 LAM interactions from 484 participants.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-21T20:29:02Z) - Towards Realistic Evaluation of Commit Message Generation by Matching Online and Offline Settings [77.20838441870151]
We use an online metric - the number of edits users introduce before committing the generated messages to the VCS - to select metrics for offline experiments.<n>We collect a dataset with 57 pairs consisting of commit messages generated by GPT-4 and their counterparts edited by human experts.<n>Our results indicate that edit distance exhibits the highest correlation with the online metric, whereas commonly used similarity metrics such as BLEU and METEOR demonstrate low correlation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-15T20:32:07Z) - Rethinking the Evaluation of Dialogue Systems: Effects of User Feedback on Crowdworkers and LLMs [57.16442740983528]
In ad-hoc retrieval, evaluation relies heavily on user actions, including implicit feedback.
The role of user feedback in annotators' assessment of turns in a conversational perception has been little studied.
We focus on how the evaluation of task-oriented dialogue systems ( TDSs) is affected by considering user feedback, explicit or implicit, as provided through the follow-up utterance of a turn being evaluated.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-19T16:45:50Z) - C-PMI: Conditional Pointwise Mutual Information for Turn-level Dialogue
Evaluation [68.59356746305255]
We propose a novel model-agnostic approach to measure the turn-level interaction between the system and the user.
Our approach significantly improves the correlation with human judgment compared with existing evaluation systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-06-27T06:58:03Z) - Cue-CoT: Chain-of-thought Prompting for Responding to In-depth Dialogue
Questions with LLMs [59.74002011562726]
We propose a novel linguistic cue-based chain-of-thoughts (textitCue-CoT) to provide a more personalized and engaging response.
We build a benchmark with in-depth dialogue questions, consisting of 6 datasets in both Chinese and English.
Empirical results demonstrate our proposed textitCue-CoT method outperforms standard prompting methods in terms of both textithelpfulness and textitacceptability on all datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-19T16:27:43Z) - Approximating Online Human Evaluation of Social Chatbots with Prompting [11.657633779338724]
Existing evaluation metrics aim to automate offline user evaluation and approximate human judgment of pre-curated dialogs.
We propose an approach to approximate online human evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs) from the GPT family.
We introduce a new Dialog system Evaluation framework based on Prompting (DEP), which enables a fully automatic evaluation pipeline.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-11T14:45:01Z) - Improving Open-Domain Dialogue Evaluation with a Causal Inference Model [8.625569782672663]
Explicit satisfaction ratings can be elicited from users, but users often do not provide ratings when asked.
Post-hoc ratings by experts are an alternative, but these can be both expensive and complex to collect.
Here, we explore the creation of automated methods for predicting both expert and user ratings of open-domain dialogues.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-31T02:31:42Z) - CoCo: Controllable Counterfactuals for Evaluating Dialogue State
Trackers [92.5628632009802]
We propose controllable counterfactuals (CoCo) to bridge the gap and evaluate dialogue state tracking (DST) models on novel scenarios.
CoCo generates novel conversation scenarios in two steps: (i) counterfactual goal generation at turn-level by dropping and adding slots followed by replacing slot values, and (ii) counterfactual conversation generation that is conditioned on (i) and consistent with the dialogue flow.
Human evaluations show that COCO-generated conversations perfectly reflect the underlying user goal with more than 95% accuracy and are as human-like as the original conversations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-10-24T09:39:35Z)
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.