Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2025 Aug 14;380(1932):20230499.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0499. Epub 2025 Aug 14.

Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models

Affiliations
Review

Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models

Jennifer Hu et al. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. .

Abstract

The question of whether large language models (LLMs) possess Theory of Mind (ToM)-often defined as the ability to reason about others' mental states-has sparked significant scientific and public interest. However, the evidence as to whether LLMs possess ToM is mixed, and the recent growth in evaluations has not resulted in a convergence. Here, we take inspiration from cognitive science to re-evaluate the state of ToM evaluation in LLMs. We argue that a major reason for the disagreement on whether LLMs have ToM is a lack of clarity on whether models should be expected to match human behaviours, or the computations underlying those behaviours. We also highlight ways in which current evaluations may be deviating from 'pure' measurements of ToM abilities, which also contributes to the confusion. We conclude by discussing several directions for future research, including the relationship between ToM and pragmatic communication, which could advance our understanding of artificial systems as well as human cognition.This article is part of the theme issue 'At the heart of human communication: new views on the complex relationship between pragmatics and Theory of Mind'.

Keywords: Theory of Mind; cognitive science; language models; pragmatics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

References

    1. Premack D, Woodruff G. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behav. Brain Sci. 1, 515–526. ( 10.1017/s0140525x00076512) - DOI
    1. Apperly I. 2011. Mindreaders: the cognitive basis of ‘theory of mind.’ New York, NY: Psychology Press.
    1. Clark HH, Marshall CR. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Elements of discourse understanding (eds Joshi A, Webber B, Sag I), pp. 10–63. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Clark HH, Wilkes-Gibbs D. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39. ( 10.1016/0010-0277(86)90010-7) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brennan SE, Galati A, Kuhlen AK. 2010. Two minds, one dialog: coordinating speaking and understanding. In Psychology of learning and motivation (ed. Ross BH), pp. 301–344, vol. 53. Elsevier. ( 10.1016/S0079-7421(10)53008-1) - DOI

LinkOut - more resources