# Understanding Mental States to Guide Social Influence in Multi-Person Group Dialogue

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.13687 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13687/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 31 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04434/) (2024)
- [ChatGLM: A Family of Large Language Models from GLM-130B to GLM-4 All Tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12793/) (2024)
- [Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.10264/) (2022)
- [Social Simulacra: Creating Populated Prototypes for Social Computing Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.04024/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.08399/) (2023)
- [Neural Theory-of-Mind? On the Limits of Social Intelligence in Large LMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13312/) (2022)
- [Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15448/) (2023)
- [FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15421/) (2023)
- [Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14763/) (2023)
- [War and Peace (WarAgent): Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Simulation of World Wars](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17227/) (2023)
- [Think Twice: Perspective-Taking Improves Large Language Models' Theory-of-Mind Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10227/) (2023)
- [MMToM-QA: Multimodal Theory of Mind Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08743/) (2024)
- [ToMBench: Benchmarking Theory of Mind in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15052/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Theory of Mind in Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.09352/) (2018)
- [NormBank: A Knowledge Bank of Situational Social Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17008/) (2023)
- [MuMA-ToM: Multi-modal Multi-Agent Theory of Mind](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12574/) (2024)
- [Towards a Client-Centered Assessment of LLM Therapists by Client Simulation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12266/) (2024)
- [Towards Dynamic Theory of Mind: Evaluating LLM Adaptation to Temporal Evolution of Human States](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.17663/) (2025)
- [MOMENTS: A Comprehensive Multimodal Benchmark for Theory of Mind](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.04415/) (2025)
- [ToM-SSI: Evaluating Theory of Mind in Situated Social Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.05066/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Existing dynamic Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks mostly place language models in a passive role: the model reads a sequence of connected scenarios and reports what people believe, feel, intend, and do as these states change. In real social interaction, ToM is also used for action: a speaker plans what to say in order to shift another person's mental-state trajectory toward a goal. We introduce SocialMindChange, a benchmark that moves from tracking minds to changing minds in social interaction. Each instance defines a social context with 4 characters and five connected scenes. The model plays one character and generates dialogue across the five scenes to reach the target while remaining consistent with the evolving states of all participants. SocialMindChange also includes selected higher-order states. Using a structured four-step framework, we construct 1,200 social contexts, covering 6000 scenarios and over 90,000 questions, each validated for realism and quality. Evaluations on ten state-of-the-art LLMs show that their average performance is 54.2% below human performance. This gap suggests that current LLMs still struggle to maintain and change mental-state representations across long, linked interactions.