Do Large Language Models Possess a Theory of Mind? A Comparative Evaluation Using the Strange Stories Paradigm

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18007v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 11:34:03 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models Possess a Theory of Mind? A Comparative Evaluation Using the Strange Stories Paradigm
• Abstract summary: The study explores whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities.<n>We tested five LLMs and compared their performance to that of human controls using an adapted version of a text-based tool widely used in human ToM research.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The study explores whether current Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities -- specifically, the ability to infer others' beliefs, intentions, and emotions from text. Given that LLMs are trained on language data without social embodiment or access to other manifestations of mental representations, their apparent social-cognitive reasoning raises key questions about the nature of their understanding. Are they capable of robust mental-state attribution indistinguishable from human ability in its output, or do their outputs merely reflect superficial pattern completion? To address this question, we tested five LLMs and compared their performance to that of human controls using an adapted version of a text-based tool widely used in human ToM research. The test involves answering questions about the beliefs, intentions, and emotions of story characters. The results revealed a performance gap between the models. Earlier and smaller models were strongly affected by the number of relevant inferential cues available and, to some extent, were also vulnerable to the presence of irrelevant or distracting information in the texts. In contrast, GPT-4o demonstrated high accuracy and strong robustness, performing comparably to humans even in the most challenging conditions. This work contributes to ongoing debates about the cognitive status of LLMs and the boundary between genuine understanding and statistical approximation.

Related papers

• Artificial Phantasia: Evidence for Propositional Reasoning-Based Mental Imagery in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This study offers a novel approach for benchmarking complex cognitive behavior in artificial systems.<n>We created dozens of novel items of a classic mental imagery task from cognitive psychology.<n>We found that the best LLMs performed significantly above average human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T04:36:12Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size.<n>Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding.<n> Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• The Essence of Contextual Understanding in Theory of Mind: A Study on Question Answering with Story Characters [67.61587661660852]
  Theory-of-Mind (ToM) allows humans to understand and interpret the mental states of others.<n>In this paper, we verify the importance of comprehensive contextual understanding about personal backgrounds in ToM.<n>We introduce CharToM benchmark, comprising 1,035 ToM questions based on characters from classic novels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T09:04:45Z)
• Judgment of Learning: A Human Ability Beyond Generative Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mimic human cognition in various language-based tasks.<n>We introduce a cross-agent prediction model to assess whether ChatGPT-based LLMs align with human judgments of learning (JOL)<n>Our results revealed that while human JOL reliably predicted actual memory performance, none of the tested LLMs demonstrated comparable predictive accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T09:42:30Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• Theory of Mind abilities of Large Language Models in Human-Robot Interaction : An Illusion? [18.770522926093786]
  Large Language Models have shown exceptional generative abilities in various natural language and generation tasks. We study a special application of ToM abilities that has higher stakes and possibly irreversible consequences. We focus on the task of Perceived Behavior Recognition, where a robot employs a Large Language Model (LLM) to assess the robot's generated behavior in a manner similar to human observer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-10T18:09:36Z)
• MoCa: Measuring Human-Language Model Alignment on Causal and Moral Judgment Tasks [49.60689355674541]
  A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments. We test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:57:32Z)
• POSQA: Probe the World Models of LLMs with Size Comparisons [38.30479784257936]
  Embodied language comprehension emphasizes that language understanding is not solely a matter of mental processing in the brain. With the explosive growth of Large Language Models (LLMs) and their already ubiquitous presence in our daily lives, it is becoming increasingly necessary to verify their real-world understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T10:05:01Z)
• 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)
• Emotionally Numb or Empathetic? Evaluating How LLMs Feel Using EmotionBench [83.41621219298489]
  We evaluate Large Language Models' (LLMs) anthropomorphic capabilities using the emotion appraisal theory from psychology. We collect a dataset containing over 400 situations that have proven effective in eliciting the eight emotions central to our study. We conduct a human evaluation involving more than 1,200 subjects worldwide.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-07T15:18:30Z)
• Revisiting the Reliability of Psychological Scales on Large Language Models [62.57981196992073]
  This study aims to determine the reliability of applying personality assessments to Large Language Models. Analysis of 2,500 settings per model, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini-Pro, and LLaMA-3.1, reveals that various LLMs show consistency in responses to the Big Five Inventory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T15:03:28Z)
• 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.