Dissecting the Ullman Variations with a SCALPEL: Why do LLMs fail at Trivial Alterations to the False Belief Task?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14737v2
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 21:47:22 GMT
• Title: Dissecting the Ullman Variations with a SCALPEL: Why do LLMs fail at Trivial Alterations to the False Belief Task?
• Authors: Zhiqiang Pi, Annapurna Vadaparty, Benjamin K. Bergen, Cameron R. Jones,
• Abstract summary: We introduce SCALPEL -- a technique to incrementally modify stimuli to test different hypotheses about why LLMs fail.<n>Our results suggest that LLMs often do poorly because they fail to make essential common-sense inferences.<n>We conclude that while modern LLMs go beyond mere pattern matching, they still fall short of robust human-like ToM.
• Score: 1.4936946857731093
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent empirical results have sparked a debate about whether or not Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of Theory of Mind (ToM). While some have found LLMs to be successful on ToM evaluations such as the False Belief task, others have shown that their performance is not robust against trivial alterations to stimuli. In this paper, we introduce SCALPEL -- a technique to incrementally modify stimuli to test different specific hypotheses about why LLMs fail -- and apply this method to the "transparent-access" modification of the unexpected contents task. Our results suggest that LLMs often do poorly because they fail to make essential common-sense inferences, such as that seeing a transparent container implies recognizing its contents. We conclude that while modern LLMs go beyond mere pattern matching, they still fall short of robust human-like ToM. We argue that SCALPEL can help cognitive scientists examine LLMs' capabilities in finer detail and provide insight into alternative mechanisms by which tasks that are used to assess human cognition might be completed.

Related papers

• LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilities [21.42711537107199]
  We study why Large Language Models (LLMs) perform sub-optimally in decision-making scenarios.<n>We propose mitigation of these shortcomings by fine-tuning via Reinforcement Learning (RL) on self-generated CoT rationales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-22T17:57:14Z)
• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [55.51468462722138]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in Large Language Models with Pinpoint Tuning [89.9648814145473]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to prioritize adherence to user prompts over providing veracious responses. Recent works propose to employ supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to mitigate the sycophancy issue. We propose a novel supervised pinpoint tuning (SPT), where the region-of-interest modules are tuned for a given objective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T07:01:37Z)
• Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains. LLMs often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T14:34:32Z)
• A Probabilistic Framework for LLM Hallucination Detection via Belief Tree Propagation [72.93327642336078]
  We propose Belief Tree Propagation (BTProp), a probabilistic framework for hallucination detection. BTProp introduces a belief tree of logically related statements by decomposing a parent statement into child statements. Our method improves baselines by 3%-9% (evaluated by AUROC and AUC-PR) on multiple hallucination detection benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T05:21:37Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Not All Layers of LLMs Are Necessary During Inference [68.88671495401483]
  We show that for some tasks, Large Language Models can achieve results comparable to the final output at some intermediate layers. We propose a simple yet effective algorithm named AdaInfer to adaptively terminate the inference process for an input instance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T16:23:58Z)
• Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models [84.94220787791389]
  We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%. FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)
• LLMs cannot find reasoning errors, but can correct them given the error location [0.9017736137562115]
  Poor self-correction performance stems from LLMs' inability to find logical mistakes, rather than their ability to correct a known mistake. We benchmark several state-of-the-art LLMs on their mistake-finding ability and demonstrate that they generally struggle with the task. We show that it is possible to obtain mistake location information without ground truth labels or in-domain training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T20:12:38Z)
• Knowing What LLMs DO NOT Know: A Simple Yet Effective Self-Detection Method [36.24876571343749]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown great potential in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Recent literature reveals that LLMs generate nonfactual responses intermittently. We propose a novel self-detection method to detect which questions that a LLM does not know that are prone to generate nonfactual results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:22:14Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are currently at the forefront of intertwining artificial intelligence (AI) systems with human communication and everyday life. This study reveals that such strategies emerged in state-of-the-art LLMs, such as GPT-4, but were non-existent in earlier LLMs. We conduct a series of experiments showing that state-of-the-art LLMs are able to understand and induce false beliefs in other agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-31T09:27:01Z)
• Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate [85.3444184685235]
  We propose a Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) framework, in which multiple agents express their arguments in the state of "tit for tat" and a judge manages the debate process to obtain a final solution. Our framework encourages divergent thinking in LLMs which would be helpful for tasks that require deep levels of contemplation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T15:25:45Z)
• Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate [19.887103433032774]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in complex reasoning tasks. This work explores testing LLMs' reasoning by engaging with them in a debate-like conversation. We find that despite their impressive performance, LLMs like ChatGPT cannot maintain their beliefs in truth for a significant portion of examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T15:47:31Z)

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.