The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Naïve Utility Calculus: Computational Principles Underlying Commonsense Psychology
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are already many reasonable computational models that try to directly capture Theory-of-Mind.
“there are already many reasonable computational models that try to directly capture this ability (e.g. 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 10)”
From Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks (2023) · cites this paper as [33]
The indexed copy contains a correction notice (p. 785) and website material, but not the review’s substantive text. Searches for computational models of Theory of Mind found no passage addressing whether many such models exist, so the claim cannot be checked against this copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Models Fail on Trivial Alterations to Theory-of-Mind Tasks
Ullman, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.08399 · Cited by 81
Metadata
- Authors
- Jara-Ettinger, J., Gweon, H., Schulz, L. E., & Tenenbaum, J. B.
- Corresponding author
- Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
- Venue
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 785
- ISSN
- 1364-6613 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2518932494
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Trends in Cognitive Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- folk psychology, social cognition, cognitive modeling, moral judgment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
