Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Avalon-ToM-Bench, a new benchmark for evaluating Theory of Mind (ToM) in AI through asymmetric game mechanics, specifically utilizing The Resistance: Avalon. The authors decompose ToM into a detailed taxonomy and benchmark 28 large language models (LLMs), revealing that while models understand game rules, they struggle with social reasoning and expressing correct mental-state inferences. Key findings indicate that effective ToM relies more on a learned reasoning policy than on mere inference-time deliberation, highlighting critical gaps in current model capabilities.
LLMs excel at game rules but falter in social reasoning, revealing a crucial disconnect in Theory of Mind capabilities.
Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for agent interactions, yet existing evaluations either rely on static scenarios that oversimplify mental-state reasoning or interactive settings that provide limited diagnostic insight. We present Avalon-ToM-Bench, a fine-grained benchmark that operationalizes ToM through the asymmetric-information mechanics of The Resistance: Avalon. Rather than evaluating end-to-end gameplay, it decomposes ToM into a 2$\times$2 taxonomy -- epistemic versus motivational reasoning crossed with inference versus action -- using human-crafted, perspective-constrained queries. Benchmarking 28 LLMs reveals three insights: 1) Reasoning, not knowledge. Models show strong game-rule comprehension but markedly weaker ToM abilities, isolating failures to social reasoning rather than missing domain knowledge. 2) Expression, not representation. Mechanistic analyses via linear probing and activation steering show that models frequently represent correct mental-state inferences in their hidden states but fail to express them during generation -- linear probes recover 77-82% accuracy versus 62-70% from the models'own chain-of-thought. 3) Policy, not deliberation. Dedicated reasoning training yields substantial improvements whereas test-time chain-of-thought provides only marginal gains (+11.0 versus +1.1 points on average), suggesting that robust ToM depends on a learned reasoning policy rather than increased inference-time deliberation.