A Systematic Review on the Evaluation of Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks

Karahan Sarıtaş, Kıvanç Tezören, Yavuz Durmazkeser
2/12/2025
cs.CLcs.CYcs.HC

No official code found. Best implementation: Mars-tin/awesome-theory-of-mind (154 stars, last commit 2025-02-18).

Abstract

In recent years, evaluating the Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities of large language models (LLMs) has received significant attention within the research community. As the field rapidly evolves, navigating the diverse approaches and methodologies has become increasingly complex. This systematic review synthesizes current efforts to assess LLMs' ability to perform ToM tasks, an essential aspect of human cognition involving the attribution of mental states to oneself and others. Despite notable advancements, the proficiency of LLMs in ToM remains a contentious issue. By categorizing benchmarks and tasks through a taxonomy rooted in cognitive science, this review critically examines evaluation techniques, prompting strategies, and the inherent limitations of LLMs in replicating human-like mental state reasoning. A recurring theme in the literature reveals that while LLMs demonstrate emerging competence in ToM tasks, significant gaps persist in their emulation of human cognitive abilities.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

Machine Theory of Mind Reading List. Built upon EMNLP Findings 2023 Paper: Towards A Holistic Landscape of Situated Theory of Mind in Large Language Models

1546Oct 21, 20231 years ago

Cite this paper

@article{sarta2025systematic,
  title  = {A Systematic Review on the Evaluation of Large Language Models in Theory of Mind Tasks},
  author = {Karahan Sarıtaş and Kıvanç Tezören and Yavuz Durmazkeser},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2502.08796},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08796v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2502.08796.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2502.08796)

Discussion