Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.08399v3
• Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2023 03:46:17 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks
• Authors: Tomer Ullman
• Abstract summary: Theory-of-Mind tasks have shown both successes and failures. Small variations that maintain the principles of ToM turn the results on their head. We argue that in general, the zero-hypothesis for model evaluation in intuitive psychology should be skeptical.
• Score: 3.3178024597495903
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Intuitive psychology is a pillar of common-sense reasoning. The replication of this reasoning in machine intelligence is an important stepping-stone on the way to human-like artificial intelligence. Several recent tasks and benchmarks for examining this reasoning in Large-Large Models have focused in particular on belief attribution in Theory-of-Mind tasks. These tasks have shown both successes and failures. We consider in particular a recent purported success case, and show that small variations that maintain the principles of ToM turn the results on their head. We argue that in general, the zero-hypothesis for model evaluation in intuitive psychology should be skeptical, and that outlying failure cases should outweigh average success rates. We also consider what possible future successes on Theory-of-Mind tasks by more powerful LLMs would mean for ToM tasks with people.

Related papers

• NegotiationToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind on Negotiation Surrounding [55.38254464415964]
  Theory of mind evaluations currently focuses on testing models using machine-generated data or game settings prone to shortcuts and spurious correlations. We introduce NegotiationToM, a new benchmark designed to stress-test machine ToM in real-world negotiation surrounding covered multi-dimensional mental states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-21T11:51:13Z)
• Think Twice: Perspective-Taking Improves Large Language Models' Theory-of-Mind Capabilities [63.90227161974381]
  SimToM is a novel prompting framework inspired by Simulation Theory's notion of perspective-taking. Our approach, which requires no additional training and minimal prompt-tuning, shows substantial improvement over existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T22:49:27Z)
• HI-TOM: A Benchmark for Evaluating Higher-Order Theory of Mind Reasoning in Large Language Models [31.831042765744204]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) is the ability to reason about one's own and others' mental states. We introduce HI-TOM, a Higher Order Theory of Mind benchmark. Our experimental evaluation using various Large Language Models (LLMs) indicates a decline in performance on higher-order ToM tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-25T16:41:15Z)
• FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactions [94.61530480991627]
  Theory of mind evaluations currently focus on testing models using passive narratives that inherently lack interactivity. We introduce FANToM, a new benchmark designed to stress-test ToM within information-asymmetric conversational contexts via question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T00:24:11Z)
• Minding Language Models' (Lack of) Theory of Mind: A Plug-and-Play Multi-Character Belief Tracker [72.09076317574238]
  ToM is a plug-and-play approach to investigate the belief states of characters in reading comprehension. We show that ToM enhances off-the-shelf neural network theory mind in a zero-order setting while showing robust out-of-distribution performance compared to supervised baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T17:24:35Z)
• Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models [82.50173296858377]
  Many anecdotal examples were used to suggest newer large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit Neural Theory-of-Mind (N-ToM) We investigate the extent of LLMs' N-ToM through an extensive evaluation on 6 tasks and find that while LLMs exhibit certain N-ToM abilities, this behavior is far from being robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:14:31Z)
• Can Pretrained Language Models (Yet) Reason Deductively? [72.9103833294272]
  We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the learnable deductive (also known as explicit) reasoning capability of PLMs. Our main results suggest that PLMs cannot yet perform reliable deductive reasoning. We reach beyond (misleading) task performance, revealing that PLMs are still far from human-level reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-12T17:44:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.