Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by evaluating their performance on both classic and perturbed false-belief tasks. The authors introduce a new, richly annotated ToM dataset with valid reasoning chains and metrics for evaluating reasoning chain correctness and faithfulness. Results show that LLMs exhibit a significant decline in ToM performance under task perturbation, and while Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting generally improves ToM performance, it can degrade accuracy for specific perturbation types.
LLMs' apparent Theory of Mind evaporates when tasks are slightly perturbed, and Chain-of-Thought prompting, surprisingly, can make things worse.
Theory of Mind (ToM) refers to an agent's ability to model the internal states of others. Contributing to the debate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit genuine ToM capabilities, our study investigates their ToM robustness using perturbations on false-belief tasks and examines the potential of Chain-of-Thought prompting (CoT) to enhance performance and explain the LLM's decision. We introduce a handcrafted, richly annotated ToM dataset, including classic and perturbed false belief tasks, the corresponding spaces of valid reasoning chains for correct task completion, subsequent reasoning faithfulness, task solutions, and propose metrics to evaluate reasoning chain correctness and to what extent final answers are faithful to reasoning traces of the generated CoT. We show a steep drop in ToM capabilities under task perturbation for all evaluated LLMs, questioning the notion of any robust form of ToM being present. While CoT prompting improves the ToM performance overall in a faithful manner, it surprisingly degrades accuracy for some perturbation classes, indicating that selective application is necessary.
