aiqbench analysis
This research exposes a critical flaw in evaluating open-ended Theory-of-Mind models, where standard finite-reference matching pipelines artificially inflate error rates by mislabeling valid but novel beliefs as false. The study demonstrates how this labeling bias can completely reverse model rankings and calibration metrics, proving that current evaluation frameworks fail to capture the true performance of systems generating out-of-distribution responses.
Unmatched Does Not Mean False: Incomplete Reference Sets Can Reverse Calibration Rankings in Open-Ended Theory-of-Mind Tracking
arXiv:2608.25654v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-ended Theory-of-Mind (ToM) trackers emit valid beliefs absent from finite references. A finite-reference-plus-matcher pipeline marks unmatched outputs false, creating proxy labels that can reverse proper-score model selection on fixed outputs. Holding 259 beliefs and paired scores fixed, reference recoding lowers weighted prevalence from 0.783 to 0.295 and reverses strictly proper Brier risk: a frozen source-prior rule leads native confidence by 0.227 under reference labels and trails by 0.152 under blinded adjudication, in all six authored scenarios. A reference-only Platt recalibrator reverses further. An ICE-specific reversal appears in a released 301-question NQ-open DPR-BERT pipeline: its average-confidence baseline improves instance-level calibration error by 0.045 under exact match but worsens it by 0.074 under human correctness, with both intervals excluding zero. On independently authored OpenToM narratives, 90-96% of audited unmatched beliefs are literally true and the paired direction again reverses. An exact decomposition attributes the distortion to omitted truths, and a closed-form criterion correctly classifies comparisons from twelve released systems. Frozen-audit retrospective replay shows 50 attempted annotations recover ranking direction with probability at least 0.996. TriSource-Restore anchors full-frame reference labels and frozen automatic judgments to a probability-sampled human pilot, maintains at least nominal coverage, narrows intervals, and repairs confidence subject to a base-rate deployment gate.
Abstract:Open-ended Theory-of-Mind (ToM) trackers emit valid beliefs absent from finite references. A finite-reference-plus-matcher pipeline marks unmatched outputs false, creating proxy labels that can reverse proper-score model selection on fixed outputs. Holding 259 beliefs and paired scores fixed, reference recoding lowers weighted prevalence from 0.783 to 0.295 and reverses strictly proper Brier risk: a frozen source-prior rule leads native confidence by 0.227 under reference labels and trails by 0.152 under blinded adjudication, in all six authored scenarios. A reference-only Platt recalibrator reverses further. An ICE-specific reversal appears in a released 301-question NQ-open DPR-BERT pipeline: its average-confidence baseline improves instance-level calibration error by 0.045 under exact match but worsens it by 0.074 under human correctness, with both intervals excluding zero. On independently authored OpenToM narratives, 90-96% of audited unmatched beliefs are literally true and the paired direction again reverses. An exact decomposition attributes the distortion to omitted truths, and a closed-form criterion correctly classifies comparisons from twelve released systems. Frozen-audit retrospective replay shows 50 attempted annotations recover ranking direction with probability at least 0.996. TriSource-Restore anchors full-frame reference labels and frozen automatic judgments to a probability-sampled human pilot, maintains at least nominal coverage, narrows intervals, and repairs confidence subject to a base-rate deployment gate.
Main paper: 9 pages, 1 figure, 5 tables. Supplementary material: 23 pages
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.25654 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.25654v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.25654 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
technical_supplement.pdf
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 313 words
