arXiv AI By Gaia Molinaro, Dave August, Danielle Perszyk, Anne G. E. Collins

Language Model Goal Selection Differs from Humans' in a Self-Directed Learning Task

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can accurately emulate human goal selection in a self‑directed learning task. Five models—GPT‑5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Qwen3 32B, and Centaur—were tested and found to diverge significantly from human behavior, often exploiting a single solution or performing poorly, with little variation across instances. Techniques such as chain‑of‑thought reasoning and persona steering offered only limited improvements, and the results were consistent across different experimental settings.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Aug 28

Assessing mentalization in humans and large language models

The study evaluates mentalization—the capacity to infer others’ beliefs and intentions—in large language models (LLMs) using two economic games and cognitive computational modeling. Researchers tested 2,099 LLM agents from four model families (DeepSeek, GPT‑4.1, GPT‑5, Gemini 2.0 Flash) against opponents of varying sophistication, comparing their performance to 251 human participants. Results show that LLMs exhibit distinct mentalizing behaviors that vary by model provider and size, with strategic prompting generally enhancing performance; notably, GPT‑5 agents adapt their recursive reasoning depth to match opponent sophistication, outperforming humans in one task.

By Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov, Patricia L. Lockwood, Lei Zhang
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 1

Aspire: Can Models Self-Evolve from Vague Goals?

The paper introduces ASPIRE, a benchmark that challenges language model agents to self‑evolve from vague, natural‑language goals without explicit evaluation metrics. In ASPIRE, agents must interpret the goal, select data and update strategies, and decide when to evaluate, all while the downstream tasks remain hidden. Experiments show that while agents can complete training loops, weight‑level improvements are sparse and unstable, and the best evolved harness still falls short of a strong engineered baseline.

By Yuhao Wu, Jingyuan Zhang, Jiajun Shi, Yuxuan Zhang, Xinping Lei, Junting Zhou, Zexuan Wang, Yuchen Wu, Huan Zhou, Duo Wang, Yinzhu Piao, Yongchang Peng, Yunfeng Shi, Jin Chen, Zuo Wang, Jinkai Liu, Jiaheng Liu, Wenxuan Zhang, Shen Yan, Wenhao Huang, Ge Zhang
arXiv AI
Sep 16

Do LLMs Have Values? A Quantitative Analysis and Alignment Framework for Values in Large Language Models

The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) possess intrinsic value systems and how to quantify and align them. By projecting responses from 106 LLMs and 95,000 human survey profiles into a shared sociological space, the authors confirm that LLMs do have values, though these values form a concentrated, idealized core rather than mirroring human diversity. They introduce the Prior-Environment-Cognition (PEC) framework to mathematically define value expression and propose an adaptive Alignment Prescription that identifies minimal interventions—ranging from prompts to targeted parameter updates—to steer LLM values efficiently without harming general performance.

By Keqing Zhang, Jingyu Chen, Yufan Liu, Yongqiang Zhu, Nai Ding, Lai Jiang, Congyan Lang, Bing Li, Weiming Hu