aiqbench analysis
This arXiv paper introduces BASIS, a benchmark for testing whether LLM agents can infer the beliefs behind user requests and notice when those beliefs diverge from the actual task state. Its key finding is that current models often ignore users' mental states when generating solutions, and that explicitly eliciting that information improves outcomes. For AI readers, the practical question is whether benchmark gains on belief inference translate into real assistance in long-horizon, multi-agent settings, which the paper explores but does not settle.
BASIS: Evaluating Belief-Aware Solutions in Interactive Settings beyond Instructions
arXiv:2602.13832v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of carrying out complex, long-horizon tasks, yet effective assistance requires more than faithfully executing user instructions. Users' requests reflect their current understanding of the problem, which may be incomplete, outdated, or incorrect. When this understanding diverges from the actual task state, literal instruction following can fail to accomplish the user's underlying goal. We introduce \textbf{BASIS} (\emph{\textbf{B}elief-\textbf{A}ware \textbf{S}olutions in \textbf{I}nteractive \textbf{S}ettings}), a benchmark that evaluates whether agents can infer the mental states underlying user requests, recognize belief-reality mismatches, and use this understanding to develop appropriate solutions. Rather than assessing mental-state inference solely through explicit questions, \textbf{BASIS} evaluates both the utility of such inferences and the quality of downstream solutions in user-agent interactions. Evaluation results show that current models often fail to account for users' mental states when generating solutions, and that solution quality is consistently higher when such information is explicitly elicited and made available during problem solving. We further investigate the practical value of mental-state consideration through comparisons with generic Chain-of-Thought prompting, controlled interventions on mental-state information, targeted training, and multi-agent collaboration experiments under partial observability. Together, these studies highlight the importance of not merely inferring others' mental states, but also using those understandings to provide grounded, goal-directed assistance.
Abstract:Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of carrying out complex, long-horizon tasks, yet effective assistance requires more than faithfully executing user instructions. Users' requests reflect their current understanding of the problem, which may be incomplete, outdated, or incorrect. When this understanding diverges from the actual task state, literal instruction following can fail to accomplish the user's underlying goal. We introduce \textbf{BASIS} (\emph{\textbf{B}elief-\textbf{A}ware \textbf{S}olutions in \textbf{I}nteractive \textbf{S}ettings}), a benchmark that evaluates whether agents can infer the mental states underlying user requests, recognize belief-reality mismatches, and use this understanding to develop appropriate solutions. Rather than assessing mental-state inference solely through explicit questions, \textbf{BASIS} evaluates both the utility of such inferences and the quality of downstream solutions in user-agent interactions. Evaluation results show that current models often fail to account for users' mental states when generating solutions, and that solution quality is consistently higher when such information is explicitly elicited and made available during problem solving. We further investigate the practical value of mental-state consideration through comparisons with generic Chain-of-Thought prompting, controlled interventions on mental-state information, targeted training, and multi-agent collaboration experiments under partial observability. Together, these studies highlight the importance of not merely inferring others' mental states, but also using those understandings to provide grounded, goal-directed assistance.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2602.13832 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2602.13832v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.13832 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 300 words
Related coverage

Social Theory and Agent Foundations
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026