CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AI2026-07-09

Psychological Competence as a Missing Dimension in AI Evaluation

Marcos Economides, Paul M. Sacher, Samuel Salzer, Alexis Michelle Abellar, Fendi Tsim, Antoine Ferrère

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.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-31

ARB: A Matched Authorship-Rewriting Benchmark Dataset for AI-Text Detector Evaluation

Gaetano Perrone, Simon Pietro Romano

Standard AI-text detection benchmarks compare human-written text against text generated directly by large language models (LLMs). While prior work has shown that rewriting and paraphrasing can degrade detector performance, it remains unclear whether performance measured on this c…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CR2026-07-23

What AI Red-Team Evaluations Can and Cannot Prove

Bandana Kaur

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-23

Representing Entity Importance in AI Knowledge Systems: A Dual-Signal Framework of Audience Evaluation and Structural Authority

Shen Xu

AI knowledge systems require representations of entity importance for retrieval, recommendation, evidence selection, and knowledge-intensive reasoning. Yet importance is often reduced to a single score derived from either human response or graph structure. Such compression may di…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-24

Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AI

Jiaqi Shao, Hanck Chen, Wei Zhang, Maxm Pan, Bing Luo

Agent benchmarks increasingly evaluate repository editing, web research, terminal use, and long-horizon interaction. Their scores support capability claims only when the evaluation protocol keeps the intended capability necessary for success. Recent reward-hacking benchmarks and…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.HCcs.AI2026-07-23

AI-Integrated Scientific Inquiry: A Practice-Centered Vision for Science Education

Arne Bewersdorff, Matias Rojas, Xiaoming Zhai

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become part of scientific inquiry. Scientists use AI to observe and measure phenomena, to identify patterns in data, and to build models. As AI moves into scientific inquiry, it gains relevance for science education: students should learn how AI i…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-24

A Roadmap to Impactful Pluralistic Alignment Research

Elinor Poole-Dayan, Jillian Fisher, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Jacob Andreas, Mitchell Gordon, Michiel A. Bakker

Pluralistic value alignment---the goal of building AI systems that represent and serve diverse human values and perspectives---has emerged as an active research agenda. Yet, there's no public evidence that it has shaped the training or evaluation of the AI systems people actually…

View free PDFSource page