Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.12175v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:29:00 GMT
• Title: Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning
• Authors: Melanie Sclar, Jane Yu, Maryam Fazel-Zarandi, Yulia Tsvetkov, Yonatan Bisk, Yejin Choi, Asli Celikyilmaz,
• Abstract summary: We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data.<n>Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios.<n>Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data.
• Score: 88.68573198200698
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Do large language models (LLMs) have theory of mind? A plethora of papers and benchmarks have been introduced to evaluate if current models have been able to develop this key ability of social intelligence. However, all rely on limited datasets with simple patterns that can potentially lead to problematic blind spots in evaluation and an overestimation of model capabilities. We introduce ExploreToM, the first framework to allow large-scale generation of diverse and challenging theory of mind data for robust training and evaluation. Our approach leverages an A* search over a custom domain-specific language to produce complex story structures and novel, diverse, yet plausible scenarios to stress test the limits of LLMs. Our evaluation reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as Llama-3.1-70B and GPT-4o, show accuracies as low as 0% and 9% on ExploreToM-generated data, highlighting the need for more robust theory of mind evaluation. As our generations are a conceptual superset of prior work, fine-tuning on our data yields a 27-point accuracy improvement on the classic ToMi benchmark (Le et al., 2019). ExploreToM also enables uncovering underlying skills and factors missing for models to show theory of mind, such as unreliable state tracking or data imbalances, which may contribute to models' poor performance on benchmarks.

Related papers

• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy. We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM) R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• LiveIdeaBench: Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context [13.967898012303325]
  We introduce LiveIdeaBench, a benchmark evaluating Large Language Models' scientific idea generation. Our benchmark employs a dynamic panel of state-of-the-art LLMs to assess generated ideas across five key dimensions: originality, feasibility, fluency, flexibility, and clarity. Our results demonstrate that models like QwQ-32B-preview achieve creative performance comparable to top-tier models such as claude-3.7-sonnet:thinking, despite significant gaps in their general intelligence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:13:44Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision [120.40788744292739]
  We propose a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models. We first propose AutoMathCritique, an automated and scalable framework for collecting critique data. We demonstrate that the critique models consistently improve the actor's performance on difficult queries at test-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:11:54Z)
• A Probabilistic Perspective on Unlearning and Alignment for Large Language Models [48.96686419141881]
  We introduce the first formal probabilistic evaluation framework in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We derive novel metrics with high-probability guarantees concerning the output distribution of a model.<n>Our metrics are application-independent and allow practitioners to make more reliable estimates about model capabilities before deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:44:23Z)
• SIaM: Self-Improving Code-Assisted Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models [54.78329741186446]
  We propose a novel paradigm that uses a code-based critic model to guide steps including question-code data construction, quality control, and complementary evaluation. Experiments across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks in English and Chinese demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T06:33:03Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• CogBench: a large language model walks into a psychology lab [12.981407327149679]
  This paper introduces CogBench, a benchmark that includes ten behavioral metrics derived from seven cognitive psychology experiments. We apply CogBench to 35 large language models (LLMs) and analyze this data using statistical multilevel modeling techniques. We find that open-source models are less risk-prone than proprietary models and that fine-tuning on code does not necessarily enhance LLMs' behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T10:43:54Z)
• Evaluation of Categorical Generative Models -- Bridging the Gap Between Real and Synthetic Data [18.142397311464343]
  We introduce an appropriately scalable evaluation method for generative models. We consider increasingly large probability spaces, which correspond to increasingly difficult modeling tasks. We validate our evaluation procedure with synthetic experiments on both synthetic generative models and current state-of-the-art categorical generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T21:05:25Z)

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.