arXiv · 2610.18610
Jev-ToM: Evaluating Theory of Mind in Typed Decision Models
Abstract
Dialogue and collaborative assistants repeatedly judge what a partner knows, believes, or intends. Typed decision models offer a potential alternative to generative large language models for bounded Theory of Mind (ToM) selection. We present Jev-ToM, comparing five typed decision models and seven generative baselines on 11,117 English text questions from nine ToM benchmarks across six capability groups. TypeSafe Jev reaches 73.2% source-balanced accuracy including native controls and ranks first or second across all six capabilities, leading beliefs, goals/desires/intentions, and emotions. Other typed models show distinct strengths across tasks. Separate resource comparisons suggest that Jev could reduce the cost and waiting time of repeated ToM selection. Confidence-based selection remains benchmark-dependent, and supplied reasons can repair errors or overturn correct answers depending on their attachment. Candidate expansion reveals distinct selection and output-validity problems. Related-question cues account for most of Jev's downstream gains, with task-dependent effects from predicted states. The findings motivate testing Jev as a ToM selection component in assistants, with task-specific confidence calibration, candidate design, and output validation as integration priorities.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Kawai Chung, Chunkit Chan, Yuxuan Liu, Yauwai Yim, Xi Yang, Wenbin Hu, Huihao Jing, Chiu Yeung Tang, Changxuan Fan, Ki Sen Hung, Tsun On Kwok, Haoran Li. 2026-10-13. Jev-ToM: Evaluating Theory of Mind in Typed Decision Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18610
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.