Theory Trace Card: Theory-Driven Socio-Cognitive Evaluation of LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Socio-cognitive benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) often fail to predict real-world behavior, even when models achieve high benchmark scores. Prior work has attributed this evaluation-deployment gap to problems of measurement and validity. While these critiques are insightful, we argue that they overlook a more fundamental issue: many socio-cognitive evaluations proceed without an explicit theoretical specification of the target capability, leaving the assumptions linking task performance to competence implicit. Without this theoretical grounding, benchmarks that exercise only narrow subsets of a capability are routinely misinterpreted as evidence of broad competence: a gap that creates a systemic validity illusion by masking the failure to evaluate the capability's other essential dimensions. To address this gap, we make two contributions. First, we diagnose and formalize this theory gap as a foundational failure that undermines measurement and enables systematic overgeneralization of benchmark results. Second, we introduce the Theory Trace Card (TTC), a lightweight documentation artifact designed to accompany socio-cognitive evaluations, which explicitly outlines the theoretical basis of an evaluation, the components of the target capability it exercises, its operationalization, and its limitations. We argue that TTCs enhance the interpretability and reuse of socio-cognitive evaluations by making explicit the full validity chain, which links theory, task operationalization, scoring, and limitations, without modifying benchmarks or requiring agreement on a single theory.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 77 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jan 2026.
Builds on
22 of 77 references.
References · 22
- 2023Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4cited by 2,579
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
- 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 706
- 2017DailyDialog: A Manually Labelled Multi-turn Dialogue Datasetcited by 649
- 2020GoEmotions: A Dataset of Fine-Grained Emotionscited by 479
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Taskscited by 217
- 2023Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMscited by 211
- 2023Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Modelscited by 166
- 2018Troubling Trends in Machine Learning Scholarshipcited by 107
- 2025Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarkscited by 102
10 more
- 2022Mapping global dynamics of benchmark creation and saturation in artificial intelligencecited by 71
- 2018Evaluating Theory of Mind in Question Answeringcited by 64
- 2024Can Large Language Models be Good Emotional Supporter? Mitigating Preference Bias on Emotional Support Conversationcited by 55
- 2023Theory of Mind in Large Language Models: Examining Performance of 11 State-of-the-Art models vs. Children Aged 7-10 on Advanced Testscited by 46
- 2021Designing AI for Trust and Collaboration in Time-Constrained Medical Decisions: A Sociotechnical Lenscited by 35
- 2024Are Large Language Models More Empathetic than Humans?cited by 18
- 2025Line Goes Up? Inherent Limitations of Benchmarks for Evaluating Large Language Modelscited by 13
- 2025The Greatest Good Benchmark: Measuring LLMs' Alignment with Utilitarian Moral Dilemmascited by 12
- 2025MORABLES: A Benchmark for Assessing Abstract Moral Reasoning in LLMs with Fablescited by 9
- 2025Preventing Another Tessa: Modular Safety Middleware For Health-Adjacent AI Assistantscited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.