PHAnToM: Persona-based Prompting Has An Effect on Theory-of-Mind Reasoning in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.02246v3
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:44:04 GMT
• Title: PHAnToM: Persona-based Prompting Has An Effect on Theory-of-Mind Reasoning in Large Language Models
• Authors: Fiona Anting Tan, Gerard Christopher Yeo, Kokil Jaidka, Fanyou Wu, Weijie Xu, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Yang Liu, See-Kiong Ng,
• Abstract summary: We empirically evaluate how role-playing prompting influences Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities. We propose the mechanism that, beyond the inherent variance in the complexity of reasoning tasks, performance differences arise because of socially-motivated prompting differences.
• Score: 25.657579792829743
• License:
• Abstract: The use of LLMs in natural language reasoning has shown mixed results, sometimes rivaling or even surpassing human performance in simpler classification tasks while struggling with social-cognitive reasoning, a domain where humans naturally excel. These differences have been attributed to many factors, such as variations in prompting and the specific LLMs used. However, no reasons appear conclusive, and no clear mechanisms have been established in prior work. In this study, we empirically evaluate how role-playing prompting influences Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reasoning capabilities. Grounding our rsearch in psychological theory, we propose the mechanism that, beyond the inherent variance in the complexity of reasoning tasks, performance differences arise because of socially-motivated prompting differences. In an era where prompt engineering with role-play is a typical approach to adapt LLMs to new contexts, our research advocates caution as models that adopt specific personas might potentially result in errors in social-cognitive reasoning.

Related papers

• LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Logical Inference in Large Language Model Reasoning [49.58786377307728]
  This paper adopts an exploratory approach by introducing a controlled evaluation environment for analogical reasoning. We analyze the comparative dynamics of inductive, abductive, and deductive inference pipelines. We investigate advanced paradigms such as hypothesis selection, verification, and refinement, revealing their potential to scale up logical inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:54:53Z)
• Humanlike Cognitive Patterns as Emergent Phenomena in Large Language Models [2.9312156642007294]
  We systematically review Large Language Models' capabilities across three important cognitive domains: decision-making biases, reasoning, and creativity. On decision-making, our synthesis reveals that while LLMs demonstrate several human-like biases, some biases observed in humans are absent. On reasoning, advanced LLMs like GPT-4 exhibit deliberative reasoning akin to human System-2 thinking, while smaller models fall short of human-level performance. A distinct dichotomy emerges in creativity: while LLMs excel in language-based creative tasks, such as storytelling, they struggle with divergent thinking tasks that require real-world context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T02:26:56Z)
• COLD: Causal reasOning in cLosed Daily activities [7.782872276680731]
  We propose the COLD (Causal reasOning in cLosed Daily activities) framework. It is built upon human understanding of daily real-world activities to reason about the causal nature of events. We show that the proposed framework facilitates the creation of enormous causal queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-29T06:37:13Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks. In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types. These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• How Likely Do LLMs with CoT Mimic Human Reasoning? [31.86489714330338]
  Chain-of-thought emerges as a promising technique for eliciting reasoning capabilities from Large Language Models (LLMs) We use causal analysis to understand the relationships between the problem instruction, reasoning, and the answer in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T10:13:04Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• 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)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)
• Studying and improving reasoning in humans and machines [0.0]
  We investigate and compare reasoning in large language models (LLM) and humans. Our results show that most of the included models presented reasoning errors akin to those frequently ascribed to error-prone, induce-based human reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T21:02:05Z)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)

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.