搜索结果：mind

Safety fine-tuning in Large Language Models (LLMs) seeks to suppress potentially harmful forms of mind-attribution such as models asserting their own consciousness or claiming to experience emotions. We investigate whether suppressing mind-attribution tendencies degrades intimately related socio-cognitive abilities such as Theory of Mind (ToM). Through safety ablation and mechanistic analyses of representational similarity, we demonstrate that LLM attributions of mind to themselves and to technological artefacts are behaviorally and mechanistically dissociable from ToM capabilities. Nevertheless, safety fine-tuned models under-attribute mind to non-human animals relative to human baselines and are less likely to exhibit spiritual belief, suppressing widely shared perspectives regarding the distribution and nature of non-human minds.

While Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) research has advanced, its efficacy in coordinating complex stakeholder interests such as travel planning remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we propose MIND (Multi-agent Inference for Negotiation Dialogue), a framework designed to simulate realistic consensus-building among travelers with heterogeneous preferences. Grounded in the Theory of Mind (ToM), MIND introduces a Strategic Appraisal phase that infers opponent willingness (w) from linguistic nuances with 90.2% accuracy. Experimental results demonstrate that MIND outperforms traditional MAD frameworks, achieving a 20.5% improvement in High-w Hit and a 30.7% increase in Debate Hit-Rate, effectively prioritizing high-stakes constraints. Furthermore, qualitative evaluations via LLM-as-a-Judge confirm that MIND surpasses baselines in Rationality (68.8%) and Fluency (72.4%), securing an overall win rate of 68.3%. These findings validate that MIND effectively models human negotiation dynamics to derive persuasive consensus.

Our paper argues that the majority of theory of mind benchmarks are broken because of their inability to directly test how large language models (LLMs) adapt to new partners. This problem stems from the fact that theory of mind benchmarks for LLMs are overwhelmingly inspired by the methods used to test theory of mind in humans and fall victim to a fallacy of attributing human-like qualities to AI agents. We expect that humans will engage in a consistent reasoning process across various questions about a situation, but this is known to not be the case for current LLMs. Most theory of mind benchmarks only measure what we call literal theory of mind: the ability to predict the behavior of others. However, this type of metric is only informative when agents exhibit self-consistent reasoning. Thus, we introduce the concept of functional theory of mind: the ability to adapt to agents in-context following a rational response to their behavior. We find that many open source LLMs are capable of displaying strong literal theory of mind capabilities, but seem to struggle with functional theory of mind -- even with exceedingly simple partner policies. Simply put, strong literal theory of mind

Collective discourse and action are driven by collective minds. These shared semantic representations and related processes shape societal responses to critical societal challenges such as climate change and political upheavals. In online communities, collective minds are susceptible to the influences of editorial practices and community dynamics, making them vulnerable to manipulation. However, understanding these influences is difficult because of the limits of experimenting with and predicting complex social systems. Here, we develop a computational model of collective minds, calibrated and validated with data from 400 million comments across five U.S. online news platforms and a survey. Our model enables us to quantitatively describe and experiment with different editorial agenda-setting practices and aspects of community dynamics to understand how they shape the collective mind. We find that some editorial influences can be reversed relatively rapidly, but others, such as amplification and reframing of certain topics, as well as community influences such as trolling and counterspeech, tend to persist and durably change the collective mind. These findings illuminate ways collec

Our ability to interpret others' mental states through nonverbal cues (NVCs) is fundamental to our survival and social cohesion. While existing Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmarks have primarily focused on false-belief tasks and reasoning with asymmetric information, they overlook other mental states beyond belief and the rich tapestry of human nonverbal communication. We present Motion2Mind, a framework for evaluating the ToM capabilities of machines in interpreting NVCs. Leveraging an expert-curated body-language reference as a proxy knowledge base, we build Motion2Mind, a carefully curated video dataset with fine-grained nonverbal cue annotations paired with manually verified psychological interpretations. It encompasses 222 types of nonverbal cues and 397 mind states. Our evaluation reveals that current AI systems struggle significantly with NVC interpretation, exhibiting not only a substantial performance gap in Detection, as well as patterns of over-interpretation in Explanation compared to human annotators.

Building on the Extended Mind (EM) theory and radical enactivism, this article suggests an alternative to representation-based models of the mind. We lay out a novel ABC framework of the translating mind, in which translation is not the manipulation of static interlingual correspondences but an enacted activity, dynamically integrating affective, behavioral, and cognitive (ABC) processes. Drawing on Predictive Processing and (En)Active Inference, we argue that the translator's mind emerges, rather than being merely extended, through loops of brain-body-environment interactions. This non-representational account reframes translation as skillful participation in sociocultural practice, where meaning is co-created in real time through embodied interaction with texts, tools, and contexts.

This report estimates the potential number of digital minds, defined as AI systems exhibiting observable traits such as agency, personality, and intelligence, in the coming decades. It employs two complementary approaches: first, examining specific use cases for digital minds and projecting adoption rates for each; second, analyzing trends in AI chip production and efficiency independent of digital mind applications. Together, these supply- and demand-side perspectives suggest that hundreds of millions of digital minds could exist by 2050, though this estimate carries substantial uncertainty spanning several orders of magnitude.

Large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic AI systems for scientific discovery, but most approaches remain limited to textbased reasoning without automated experimental verification. We propose MIND, an LLM-driven framework for automated hypothesis validation in materials research. MIND organizes the scientific discovery process into hypothesis refinement, experimentation, and debate-based validation within a multi-agent pipeline. For experimental verification, the system integrates Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials, particularly SevenNet-Omni, enabling scalable in-silico experiments. We also provide a web-based user interface for automated hypothesis testing. The modular design allows additional experimental modules to be integrated, making the framework adaptable to broader scientific workflows. The code is available at: https://github.com/IMMS-Ewha/MIND, and a demonstration video at: https://youtu.be/lqiFe1OQzN4.

The vertebrate motor system employs dimensionality-reducing strategies to limit the complexity of movement coordination, for efficient motor control. But when environments are dense with hidden action-outcome contingencies, movement complexity can promote behavioral innovation. Humans, perhaps uniquely, may infer the presence of hidden environmental dynamics from social cues, by drawing upon computational mechanisms shared with Theory of Mind. This proposed "Theory of Environment" supports behavioral innovation by expanding the dimensionality of motor exploration.

Originating in psychology, $\textit{Theory of Mind}$ (ToM) has attracted significant attention across multiple research communities, especially logic, economics, and robotics. Most psychological work does not aim at formalizing those central concepts, namely $\textit{goals}$, $\textit{intentions}$, and $\textit{beliefs}$, to automate a ToM-based computational process, which, by contrast, has been extensively studied by logicians. In this paper, we offer a different perspective by proposing a computational framework viewed through the lens of game theory. On the one hand, the framework prescribes how to make boudedly rational decisions while maintaining a theory of mind about others (and recursively, each of the others holding a theory of mind about the rest); on the other hand, it employs statistical techniques and approximate solutions to retain computability of the inherent computational problem.

This paper introduces function alignment, a novel theory of mind and intelligence that is both intuitively compelling and structurally grounded. It explicitly models how meaning, interpretation, and analogy emerge from interactions among layered representations, forming a coherent framework capable not only of modeling minds but also of serving as a blueprint for building them. One of the key theoretical insights derived from function alignment is bounded interpretability, which provides a unified explanation for previously fragmented ideas in cognitive science, such as bounded rationality, symbol grounding, and analogy-making. Beyond modeling, the function alignment framework bridges disciplines often kept apart, linking computational architecture, psychological theory, and even contemplative traditions such as Zen. Rather than building on any philosophical systems, it offers a structural foundation upon which multiple ways of understanding the mind may be reconstructed.

When users perceive AI systems as mindful, independent agents, they hold them responsible instead of the AI experts who created and designed these systems. So far, it has not been studied whether explanations support this shift in responsibility through the use of mind-attributing verbs like "to think". To better understand the prevalence of mind-attributing explanations we analyse AI explanations in 3,533 explainable AI (XAI) research articles from the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus (S2ORC). Using methods from semantic shift detection, we identify three dominant types of mind attribution: (1) metaphorical (e.g. "to learn" or "to predict"), (2) awareness (e.g. "to consider"), and (3) agency (e.g. "to make decisions"). We then analyse the impact of mind-attributing explanations on awareness and responsibility in a vignette-based experiment with 199 participants. We find that participants who were given a mind-attributing explanation were more likely to rate the AI system as aware of the harm it caused. Moreover, the mind-attributing explanation had a responsibility-concealing effect: Considering the AI experts' involvement lead to reduced ratings of AI responsibility for part

User experience in data visualization is typically assessed through post-viewing self-reports, but these overlook the dynamic cognitive processes during interaction. This study explores the use of mind wandering -- a phenomenon where attention spontaneously shifts from a primary task to internal, task-related thoughts or unrelated distractions -- as a dynamic measure during visualization exploration. Participants reported mind wandering while viewing visualizations from a pre-labeled visualization database and then provided quantitative ratings of trust, engagement, and design quality, along with qualitative descriptions and short-term/long-term recall assessments. Results show that mind wandering negatively affects short-term visualization recall and various post-viewing measures, particularly for visualizations with little text annotation. Further, the type of mind wandering impacts engagement and emotional response. Mind wandering also functions as an intermediate process linking visualization design elements to post-viewing measures, influencing how viewers engage with and interpret visual information over time. Overall, this research underscores the importance of incorporating

Theory of mind (ToM) enables AI systems to infer agents' hidden goals and mental states, but existing approaches focus mainly on small human understandable gridworld spaces. We introduce HiVAE, a hierarchical variational architecture that scales ToM reasoning to realistic spatiotemporal domains. Inspired by the belief-desire-intention structure of human cognition, our three-level VAE hierarchy achieves substantial performance improvements on a 3,185-node campus navigation task. However, we identify a critical limitation: while our hierarchical structure improves prediction, learned latent representations lack explicit grounding to actual mental states. We propose self-supervised alignment strategies and present this work to solicit community feedback on grounding approaches.

Facial Expression Recognition (FER) plays a foundational role in enabling AI systems to interpret emotional nuances, a critical aspect of affective Theory of Mind (ToM). However, existing models often struggle with poor calibration and a limited capacity to capture emotional intensity and complexity. To address this, we propose Ranking the Emotional Nuance for Theory of Mind (Rank-O-ToM), a framework that leverages ordinal ranking to align confidence levels with the emotional spectrum. By incorporating synthetic samples reflecting diverse affective complexities, Rank-O-ToM enhances the nuanced understanding of emotions, advancing AI's ability to reason about affective states.

Exbodiment describes mind outsourced to engineered matter and how matter reeducates mind. The constraints of exbodied matter encode elements of thought, channel decision-making, and constitute an important part of an extended computational phenotype. Here I provide an introduction and brief cultural history of exbodiment in music, natural history, cognition, and astrobiology. The "Helix of Exbodiment" is introduced to illustrate continuous feedback between mind and matter.

Self-disclosure is important to help us feel better, yet is often difficult. This difficulty can arise from how we think people are going to react to our self-disclosure. In this workshop paper, we briefly discuss self-disclosure to conversational user interfaces (CUIs) in relation to various social cues. We then, discuss how expressions of uncertainty or representation of a CUI's reasoning could help encourage self-disclosure, by making a CUI's intended "theory of mind" more transparent to users.

Within the context of human-robot interaction (HRI), Theory of Mind (ToM) is intended to serve as a user-friendly backend to the interface of robotic systems, enabling robots to infer and respond to human mental states. When integrated into robots, ToM allows them to adapt their internal models to users' behaviors, enhancing the interpretability and predictability of their actions. Similarly, Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) aims to make AI systems transparent and interpretable, allowing humans to understand and interact with them effectively. Since ToM in HRI serves related purposes, we propose to consider ToM as a form of XAI and evaluate it through the eValuation XAI (VXAI) framework and its seven desiderata. This paper identifies a critical gap in the application of ToM within HRI, as existing methods rarely assess the extent to which explanations correspond to the robot's actual internal reasoning. To address this limitation, we propose to integrate ToM within XAI frameworks. By embedding ToM principles inside XAI, we argue for a shift in perspective, as current XAI research focuses predominantly on the AI system itself and often lacks user-centered explanations. Inco

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states to others and predict their behaviour, is fundamental to social intelligence. In this paper, we survey studies evaluating behavioural and representational ToM in Large Language Models (LLMs), identify important safety risks from advanced LLM ToM capabilities, and suggest several research directions for effective evaluation and mitigation of these risks.