mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Psychological Competence as a Missing Dimension in AI Evaluation

arXiv 2607.08285 ↗First posted 9 Jul 2026cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Current AI evaluation frameworks focus primarily on technical performance, including accuracy, robustness, reasoning ability, and policy compliance. These measures remain essential, but they are not sufficient for systems that interact directly with users through natural language. Human-facing AI systems are increasingly used as advisors, coaches, tutors, and companions. In these roles, their responses can shape how users reason, interpret emotions, form beliefs, calibrate trust, and make decisions. The relevant unit of evaluation is therefore not only the model, but the human-AI interaction. This paper introduces psychological competence as a missing dimension in AI evaluation. We define psychological competence as the capacity of a human-facing AI system to support user cognition, emotional interpretation, and behavioral decision-making in ways that are appropriate to the user, context, and purpose of the interaction. This includes interaction properties such as framing, tone, perceived authority, responsiveness, uncertainty handling, and conversational guidance. Existing evaluation approaches capture parts of this problem but rarely assess these psychological effects directly. Drawing on behavioral science and human-AI interaction research, we outline a conceptual framework for psychological competence and its core domains. Rather than proposing a specific benchmark, we define the construct, clarify its boundaries, and describe how it may be assessed through scenario-based probes, structured human evaluation, and model-assisted evaluation methods. We argue that psychological competence should become a core consideration for model providers, deploying organizations, researchers, and regulators concerned with the real-world effects of human-facing AI systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jul 2026.

Builds on

14 of 43 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know24 Jan

Other references · 13

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  4. 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 480
  5. 2025ELEPHANT: Measuring and understanding social sycophancy in LLMscited by 115
  6. 2024On the Conversational Persuasiveness of Large Language Models: A Randomized Controlled Trialcited by 105
  7. 2025Why human-AI relationships need socioaffective alignmentcited by 47
  8. 2024Trust in AI: Progress, Challenges, and Future Directionscited by 35
  9. 2026How AI Impacts Skill Formationcited by 20
  10. 2024Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognitioncited by 12
  11. 2026From Future of Work to Future of Workers: Addressing Asymptomatic AI Harms for Dignified Human-AI Interactioncited by 6
  12. 2025Addressing Longstanding Challenges in Cognitive Science with Language Modelscited by 3
1 more
  1. 2026Belief Offloading in Human-AI Interactioncited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025An Approach to Grounding AI Model Evaluations in Human-derived Criteria
  2. 2026[MM/AI] Mental Models in Human-AI Interaction: Methods and Challenges in the Generative and Agentic AI Era (Workshop)
  3. 2024ValueCompass: A Framework for Measuring Contextual Value Alignment Between Human and LLMs
  4. 2024Trusting Your AI Agent Emotionally and Cognitively: Development and Validation of a Semantic Differential Scale for AI Trust
  5. 2025Measurement to Meaning: A Validity-Centered Framework for AI Evaluation
  6. 2025HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants
  7. 2026Imperfectly Cooperative Human-AI Interactions: Comparing the Impacts of Human and AI Attributes in Simulated and User Studies
  8. 2025Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications