arXiv:2610.33014v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: A negotiation assistant can reach a good deal without accurately predicting the other person's response. We ask whether evaluations of social world models test that prediction directly. We audit 113 works published from 1999 to 2026. 9 primary evaluations measure a real person's response to an action selected by the system or experimenter. Only 2 also compare an explicit response forecast with that response. Their predictors use information available when the action is chosen, and the evaluated responses were excluded from fitting; both randomize the intervention. A separate full-text check of 25 language-model works finds no experiment meeting these conditions. The other evaluations test current-state inference, task success, or prediction from recorded actions. We propose a 1-step negotiation experiment that separates these questions. The findings describe the audited sample, not the prevalence of this evaluation gap across the field.
Abstract: A negotiation assistant can reach a good deal without accurately predicting the other person's response. We ask whether evaluations of social world models test that prediction directly. We audit 113 works published from 1999 to 2026. 9 primary evaluations measure a real person's response to an action selected by the system or experimenter. Only 2 also compare an explicit response forecast with that response. Their predictors use information available when the action is chosen, and the evaluated responses were excluded from fitting; both randomize the intervention. A separate full-text check of 25 language-model works finds no experiment meeting these conditions. The other evaluations test current-state inference, task success, or prediction from recorded actions. We propose a 1-step negotiation experiment that separates these questions. The findings describe the audited sample, not the prevalence of this evaluation gap across the field.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org