# Do Large Language Models Mentalize When They Teach?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.01594 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01594/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Tutor CoPilot: A Human-AI Approach for Scaling Real-Time Expertise](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03017/) (2024)
- [Towards the Pedagogical Steering of Large Language Models for Tutoring: A Case Study with Modeling Productive Failure](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03781/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

How do LLMs decide what to teach next: by reasoning about a learner's knowledge, or by using simpler rules of thumb? We test this in a controlled task previously used to study human teaching strategies. On each trial, a teacher LLM sees a hypothetical learner's trajectory through a reward-annotated directed graph and must reveal a single edge so the learner would choose a better path if they replanned. We run a range of LLMs as simulated teachers and fit their trial-by-trial choices with the same cognitive models used for humans: a Bayes-Optimal teacher that infers which transitions the learner is missing (inverse planning), weaker Bayesian variants, heuristic baselines (e.g., reward based), and non-mentalizing utility models. In a baseline experiment matched to the stimuli presented to human subjects, most LLMs perform well, show little change in strategy over trials, and their graph-by-graph performance is similar to that of humans. Model comparison (BIC) shows that Bayes-Optimal teaching best explains most models' choices. When given a scaffolding intervention, models follow auxiliary inference- or reward-focused prompts, but these scaffolds do not reliably improve later teaching on heuristic-incongruent test graphs and can sometimes reduce performance. Overall, cognitive model fits provide insight into LLM tutoring policies and show that prompt compliance does not guarantee better teaching decisions.