Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper addresses the challenge of simulating Theory of Mind (ToM) in large language models (LLMs) by introducing a novel prompting method called PICTURE, which allows LLMs to generate free-form explanations while explicitly indicating a character's lack of knowledge. Unlike traditional methods that rely on event hiding, which can degrade performance due to strict output constraints, PICTURE enhances reasoning by making the character's ignorance explicit. Experimental results demonstrate that this approach improves performance on false-belief tasks by an average of 7.3%, highlighting its effectiveness in ToM reasoning.
Explicitly revealing a character's ignorance can boost LLM performance on Theory of Mind tasks by over 7%.
Simulating human-like Theory of Mind (ToM) has been a longstanding problem in natural language processing (NLP). To address this, existing works introduce a reasoning step of event hiding (a.k.a. perspective-taking), where events unknown to a character are removed before question answering. However, resorting to event hiding for ToM reasoning presents a performance degradation issue due to the strict output format constraints involved in event hiding. To mitigate this issue, we propose generating perspective-taking outputs as free-form explanations without event hiding, but this poses a notable yet underexplored challenge: LLMs need to inhibit responses to events unknown to characters, because the absence of event hiding exposes LLMs to these events throughout reasoning. To address this challenge, we hypothesize and empirically verify that LLMs can achieve such inhibition if a character's lack of knowledge about events is made explicit during reasoning. Based on this finding, we introduce PICTURE, a new prompting method that enables LLMs to generate a character's lack of knowledge within free-form Chain-of-Thought (CoT). Experimental results show that PICTURE outperforms existing prompting methods by an average of 7.3% on false-belief tasks.