How Well Can Vison-Language Models Understand Humans' Intention? An Open-ended Theory of Mind Question Evaluation Benchmark

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.22093v2
• Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 03:20:58 GMT
• Title: How Well Can Vison-Language Models Understand Humans' Intention? An Open-ended Theory of Mind Question Evaluation Benchmark
• Authors: Ximing Wen, Mallika Mainali, Anik Sen,
• Abstract summary: Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities in Visual Question Answering (VQA) tasks.<n>However, their ability to perform Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks, such as inferring human intentions, beliefs, and mental states, remains underexplored.<n>We propose an open-ended question framework to evaluate VLMs' performance across diverse categories of ToM tasks.
• Score: 0.8820880683910832
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Vision Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities in Visual Question Answering (VQA) tasks; however, their ability to perform Theory of Mind (ToM) tasks, such as inferring human intentions, beliefs, and mental states, remains underexplored. We propose an open-ended question framework to evaluate VLMs' performance across diverse categories of ToM tasks. We curated and annotated a benchmark dataset of 30 images and evaluated the performance of four VLMs of varying sizes. Our results show that the GPT-4 model outperformed all the others, with only one smaller model, GPT-4o-mini, achieving comparable performance. We observed that VLMs often struggle to infer intentions in complex scenarios such as bullying or cheating. Our findings reveal that smaller models can sometimes infer correct intentions despite relying on incorrect visual cues. The dataset is available at https://github.com/ximingwen/ToM-AAAI25-Multimodal.

Related papers

• V-MAGE: A Game Evaluation Framework for Assessing Visual-Centric Capabilities in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.27290155010533]
  V-MAGE is a game-based evaluation framework designed to assess visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. We use V-MAGE to evaluate leading MLLMs, revealing significant challenges in their visual perception and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T15:43:01Z)
• VisualSimpleQA: A Benchmark for Decoupled Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models in Fact-Seeking Question Answering [28.045285777736876]
  We introduce VisualSimpleQA, a multimodal fact-seeking benchmark with two key features. It enables streamlined and decoupled evaluation of LVLMs in visual and linguistic modalities. Experiments on 15 LVLMs show that even state-of-the-art models such as GPT-4o achieve merely 60%+ correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T07:25:32Z)
• Explore Theory of Mind: Program-guided adversarial data generation for theory of mind reasoning [88.68573198200698]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T21:29:00Z)
• DynaMath: A Dynamic Visual Benchmark for Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Robustness of Vision Language Models [19.787224412654872]
  We introduce DynaMath, a dynamic visual math benchmark designed for in-depth assessment of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) DynaMath includes 501 high-quality, multi-topic seed questions, each represented as a Python program. Our results show that the worst-case model accuracy, defined as the percentage of correctly answered seed questions in all 10 variants, is significantly lower than the average-case accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T17:29:19Z)
• AutoBench-V: Can Large Vision-Language Models Benchmark Themselves? [65.92331309449015]
  We introduce AutoBench-V, an automated framework for serving evaluation on demand, i.e., benchmarking LVLMs based on specific aspects of model capability.<n>Through an extensive evaluation of nine popular LVLMs across five demanded user inputs, the framework shows effectiveness and reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T17:55:08Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• DARE: Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness Evaluation [16.87867803628065]
  Vision Language Models (VLMs) extend remarkable capabilities of text-only large language models and vision-only models. They struggle with a number of crucial vision-language (VL) reasoning abilities such as counting and spatial reasoning. We introduce DARE, Diverse Visual Question Answering with Robustness Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T16:31:50Z)
• Benchmarking Mental State Representations in Language Models [9.318796743761224]
  Research into the models' internal representation of mental states remains limited. Recent work has used probing to demonstrate that LMs can represent beliefs of themselves and others. We report an extensive benchmark with various LM types with different model sizes. We are the first to study how prompt variations impact probing performance on theory of mind tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T12:51:06Z)
• CODIS: Benchmarking Context-Dependent Visual Comprehension for Multimodal Large Language Models [58.95889895912716]
  We introduce a new benchmark, named as CODIS, designed to assess the ability of models to use context provided in free-form text to enhance visual comprehension. Our findings indicate that MLLMs consistently fall short of human performance on this benchmark. This underscores the pressing need to enhance the ability of MLLMs to comprehend visuals in a context-dependent manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T08:21:12Z)
• PUB: A Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark for Assessing LLMs' Pragmatics Capabilities [40.55743949223173]
  Pragmatics Understanding Benchmark (PUB) is a dataset consisting of fourteen tasks in four pragmatics phenomena. PUB includes a total of 28k data points, 6.1k of which have been created by us, and the rest are adapted from existing datasets. Our study indicates that fine-tuning for instruction-following and chat significantly enhances the pragmatics capabilities of smaller language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T13:46:14Z)
• Revisiting Few-Shot Object Detection with Vision-Language Models [49.79495118650838]
  We revisit the task of few-shot object detection (FSOD) in the context of recent foundational vision-language models (VLMs) We propose Foundational FSOD, a new benchmark protocol that evaluates detectors pre-trained on any external data. We discuss our recent CVPR 2024 Foundational FSOD competition and share insights from the community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T07:42:00Z)
• How FaR Are Large Language Models From Agents with Theory-of-Mind? [69.41586417697732]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm for large language models (LLMs): Thinking for Doing (T4D) T4D requires models to connect inferences about others' mental states to actions in social scenarios. We introduce a zero-shot prompting framework, Foresee and Reflect (FaR), which provides a reasoning structure that encourages LLMs to anticipate future challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T06:47:58Z)
• ToMChallenges: A Principle-Guided Dataset and Diverse Evaluation Tasks for Exploring Theory of Mind [3.9599054392856483]
  We present ToMChallenges, a dataset for comprehensively evaluating the Theory of Mind based on the Sally-Anne and Smarties tests with a diverse set of tasks. Our evaluation results and error analyses show that LLMs have inconsistent behaviors across prompts and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:54:07Z)
• 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)

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.