Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper systematically probes LLM social attribution, specifically responsibility and blame judgments, using a theory-guided benchmark derived from social psychology. Findings reveal that current LLMs exhibit partial alignment with human attributions, with agreement positively correlated with model size, and identify decodable latent representations for key attribution dimensions. The research introduces a novel probing methodology to analyze internal mechanisms and their consistency with human attribution theory.
LLMs can attribute responsibility and blame, but their reasoning is incomplete and varies with model scale, with specific attribution dimensions demonstrably encoded in their latent spaces.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sociotechnical systems where social attribution, the reasoning process attributing external events to the causes and reasons of agents'social behaviors, plays a critical role. These processes involve judgments of social cause, responsibility, and blame/credit to agents. Although attributional models are well-studied in social psychology and cognition through Attribution Theory, social attribution remains underexplored in AI, particularly LLM social reasoning. This paper provides the first systematic exploration of LLM social attribution. Our work focuses on responsibility and blame attributions, examining current LLMs'judgments and their underlying internal mechanisms. Guided by attribution theory, we construct a social attribution benchmark consisting of a Vignette subset based on classic scenarios from attribution theory research and a Reality subset based on real-world social narratives, yielding 7,639 responsibility/blame judgment questions. On this basis, we evaluate 32 representative LLMs and 5 basic non-LLM baselines. To further explore the internal mechanisms underlying the LLM judgment process, we develop a probing-based methodology to investigate the latent-space representations of 5 key attribution dimensions and the consistency of their influences on LLM judgments compared to those in human social attribution. Our research findings reveal that current LLMs exhibit measurable but incomplete agreement with human responsibility and blame judgments, and meanwhile, this agreement is positively correlated with model size. Some attribution dimensions are systematically decodable from specific positions in LLM hidden states, and their influences on the final judgment are consistent with those indicated by human Attribution Theory. The dataset and associated code are available at https://github.com/Yuzhaoxin946/SAB-Bench.