analiza aiqbench
This study introduces ToMStories, a synthetic dataset designed to evaluate large language models' ability to infer implicit psychological states and motivations within narrative contexts. The findings reveal a significant gap between model performance on multiple-choice tasks and open-ended questions, suggesting that current models simplify complex human interpretation rather than truly understanding it. This work provides a critical benchmark for assessing the depth of social reasoning capabilities in next-generation AI systems.
ToMStories: Interpreting Theory-of-Mind in Synthetic Narratives
arXiv:2610.22632v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Understanding people often requires inferring what they feel or want from how they behave rather than from what they state outright. We ask whether language models can make these inferences, and how they do so. We introduce Theory-of-Mind Stories (ToMStories), an evaluation dataset of ~6,000 short synthetically generated narrative vignettes, each paired with a multiple-choice or open-ended question about a character's emotion, fear, motivation, or emotional wound. These psychological states are conveyed implicitly (showing), explicitly (telling), or with conflict between dialogue and description. Evaluating thirteen open-weight models (1B-72B parameters), we find that the largest models match humans on multiple choice but not open-ended questions. Our analyses point to simplifications models make in both interpretation and generation of implicit psychological states, indicating that synthetic data can help us understand how models perform interpretation, but likely overestimates how well models interpret humans.
Abstract:Understanding people often requires inferring what they feel or want from how they behave rather than from what they state outright. We ask whether language models can make these inferences, and how they do so. We introduce Theory-of-Mind Stories (ToMStories), an evaluation dataset of ~6,000 short synthetically generated narrative vignettes, each paired with a multiple-choice or open-ended question about a character's emotion, fear, motivation, or emotional wound. These psychological states are conveyed implicitly (showing), explicitly (telling), or with conflict between dialogue and description. Evaluating thirteen open-weight models (1B-72B parameters), we find that the largest models match humans on multiple choice but not open-ended questions. Our analyses point to simplifications models make in both interpretation and generation of implicit psychological states, indicating that synthetic data can help us understand how models perform interpretation, but likely overestimates how well models interpret humans.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.22632 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.22632v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22632 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 238 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026
Models Can't Remember Their Training. Neither Can You.
LessWrong · 19 iul. 2026
The Case Against Slowing Down AI
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026