← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

SOTOPIA: Interactive Evaluation for Social Intelligence in Language Agents

Xuhui Zhou, Hao Zhu, Leena Mathur, Ruohong Zhang, Haofei Yu, Zhengyang Qi, Louis-Philippe Morency, Yonatan Bisk, Daniel Fried, Graham Neubig, Maarten Sap

datasets & benchmarksSocialInteractionAgentSocial intelligenceLarge Language ModelsEvaluationTheory of Mind
76.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.31)
84.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)
57.10100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — SOTOPIA is a novel, challenging, and interactive benchmark that could serve as the perfect test-bed and potential incubator for social intelligence.

Abstract

*Humans are social beings*; we pursue social goals in our daily interactions, which is a crucial aspect of social intelligence. Yet, AI systems' abilities in this realm remain elusive. We present SOTOPIA, an open-ended environment to simulate complex social interactions between artificial agents and evaluate their social intelligence. In our environment, agents role-play and *interact* under a wide variety of scenarios; they coordinate, collaborate, exchange, and compete with each other to achieve complex social goals. We simulate the role-play interaction between LLM-based agents and humans within this task space and evaluate their performance with a holistic evaluation framework called SOTOPIA-Eval. With SOTOPIA, we find significant differences between these models in terms of their social intelligence, and we identify a subset of SOTOPIA scenarios, SOTOPIA-hard, that is generally challenging for all models. We find that on this subset, GPT-4 achieves a significantly lower goal completion rate than humans and struggles to exhibit social commonsense reasoning and strategic communication skills. These findings demonstrate SOTOPIA's promise as a general platform for research on evaluating and improving social intelligence in artificial agents.

Author context

Most prolific author: 6 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)