Evaluating the theory of mind (ToM) capabilities of language models (LMs) has recently received a great deal of attention. However, many existing benchmarks rely on synthetic data, which risks misaligning the resulting experiments with human behavior. We introduce the first ToM dataset based on naturally occurring spoken dialogs, Common-ToM, and show that LMs struggle to demonstrate ToM. We then show that integrating a simple, explicit representation of beliefs improves LM performance on Common-ToM.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the capacity to comprehend the mental states of distinct individuals, is essential for numerous practical applications. With the development of large language models (LLMs), there is a heated debate about whether they are able to perform ToM tasks. Previous studies have used different tasks and prompts to test the ToM on LLMs and the results are inconsistent: some studies asserted these models are capable of exhibiting ToM, while others suggest the opposite. In this study, We present ToMChallenges, a dataset for comprehensively evaluating the Theory of Mind based on the Sally-Anne and Smarties tests with a diverse set of tasks. In addition, we also propose an auto-grader to streamline the answer evaluation process. We tested three models: davinci, turbo, and gpt-4. Our evaluation results and error analyses show that LLMs have inconsistent behaviors across prompts and tasks. Performing the ToM tasks robustly remains a challenge for the LLMs. In addition, our paper wants to raise awareness in evaluating the ToM in LLMs and we want to invite more discussion on how to design the prompts and tasks for ToM tasks that can better assess the LLMs' ability.