Textual Time Travel: A Temporally Informed Approach to Theory of Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural language processing systems such as dialogue agents should be able to reason about other people's beliefs, intentions and desires. This capability, called theory of mind (ToM), is crucial, as it allows a model to predict and interpret the needs of users based on their mental states. A recent line of research evaluates the ToM capability of existing memoryaugmented neural models through questionanswering. These models perform poorly on false belief tasks where beliefs differ from reality, especially when the dataset contains distracting sentences. In this paper, we propose a new temporally informed approach for improving the ToM capability of memory-augmented neural models. Our model incorporates priors about the entities' minds and tracks their mental states as they evolve over time through an extended passage. It then responds to queries through textual time travel-i.e., by accessing the stored memory of an earlier time step. We evaluate our model on ToM datasets and find that this approach improves performance, particularly by correcting the predicted mental states to match the false belief.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".