Evaluating Theory of Mind in Question Answering (D18-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a dataset is proposed for question answering models with respect to their capacity to reason about beliefs.
Approach: They propose a dataset for evaluating question answering models with respect to their capacity to reason about beliefs.
Outcome: The proposed dataset is inspired by theory-of-mind experiments that examine whether children are able to reason about beliefs of others.

Similar Papers

Revisiting the Evaluation of Theory of Mind through Question Answering (D19-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing benchmarks for theory of mind are flawed due to dataset biases . evaluators have been using the Sally-Anne test to infer false beliefs in others .
Approach: They propose to use question answering to evaluate theory of mind . they propose to explicitly control for data regularities via a careful examination of the answer space .
Outcome: The proposed evaluation protocol and dataset control for data regularities via a careful examination of the answer space.
Are Red Roses Red? Evaluating Consistency of Question-Answering Models (P19-1)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing question-answering systems are limited in their ability to test reasoning and comprehension.
Approach: They propose a method to automatically extract implications from QA datasets to evaluate models' consistency . they use a heuristic to generate such questions and retrain models with implication-augmented data .
Outcome: The proposed method shows that generated implications are well formed and valid . retraining with implication-augmented data improves consistency on both synthetic and human-generated implications.
Theory of Mind in Large Language Models: Assessment and Enhancement (2025.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Theory of Mind (ToM) is a cornerstone of human social intelligence . Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into daily life .
Approach: They analyze evaluation benchmarks and enhancement strategies to evaluate LLMs' ToM capabilities.
Outcome: The proposed and widely used story-based benchmarks and enhancement strategies are used to evaluate LLMs' ToM capabilities.
What do Models Learn from Question Answering Datasets? (2020.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing models have outperformed humans on question answering datasets, but they have yet to outperform humans on the task of question answering itself.
Approach: They evaluate BERT-based question answering models on their generalizability to out-of-domain examples, responses to missing or incorrect data, and ability to handle question variations.
Outcome: The proposed models outperform human baselines on the widely-used SQuAD 1.1 and SQu AD 2.0 datasets.
Bend but Don’t Break? Multi-Challenge Stress Test for QA Models (D19-58)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a gap remains in reasoning ability compared to a human, and performance tends to degrade when models are exposed to less-constrained tasks.
Approach: They conduct extensive qualitative and quantitative analyses on the results of four models across four datasets . they relate common errors to model capabilities and discuss a way forward .
Outcome: The proposed model performance is based on the results of four models across four datasets.
DebateQA: Evaluating Question Answering on Debatable Knowledge (2026.findings-eacl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing QA benchmarks that provide fixed answers to debatable questions are inadequate for evaluating their performance.
Approach: They propose to use a dataset of 2,941 debatable questions to assess their ability to provide comprehensive answers to inherently debatably asked questions.
Outcome: The proposed model performs well on 2,941 debatable questions accompanied by human-annotated partial answers that capture a variety of perspectives.
Knowing More About Questions Can Help: Improving Calibration in Question Answering (2021.findings-acl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing work on calibration focuses on model confidence, such as the max probability of the predicted class.
Approach: They propose a calibration method which estimates whether model correctly predicts answer for each question.
Outcome: The proposed calibration method achieves 5-10% gains on reading comprehension benchmarks.
PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalence (2024.findings-emnlp)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Current short-form QA evaluations lack diverse styles of evaluation data and rely on expensive and slow LLMs.
Approach: They propose a rubric for machine QA that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods.
Outcome: The proposed evaluations improve on the existing short-form QA evaluations using the Trivia community.
Explain by Evidence: An Explainable Memory-based Neural Network for Question Answering (2020.coling-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Interpretability and explainability of deep neural net models are always challenging due to their size and complexity.
Approach: They propose to design an explainable, evidence-based memory network architecture that connects current sample with seen samples and bases its decision on these samples.
Outcome: The proposed model can trace errors to training instances that might have caused errors . the proposed model achieves state-of-the-art performance on two popular datasets .
Evaluating Reasoning Models for Queries with Presuppositions (2026.findings-acl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Prior work notes that large language models fail to challenge erroneous assumptions and can reinforce users’ misinformed opinions.
Approach: They construct queries with varying degrees of presuppositions spanning health, science, and general knowledge and evaluate several widely-deployed models.
Outcome: The proposed models achieve higher accuracy but fail to challenge a large fraction of false presuppositions.

What is GenGO?

GenGO is an NLP powered publication search system. It currenctly indexes 30k+ papers from ACL Anthology, and implements multi-aspect summarization, semantic search, and more!

Information

About
Limitations