Rational quantitative attribution of beliefs, desires and percepts in human mentalizing
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [32]
Cites
Motion illusions as optimal percepts
Weiss, Y., Simoncelli, E. P., & Adelson, E. H. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn0602-858 · Cited by 1,076 · see citing works
Inferring the intentional states of autonomous virtual agents
Pantelis, P. C., Baker, C. L., Cholewiak, S. A., Sanik, K., Weinstein, A., Wu, C.-C., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Feldman, J. (2014) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.011 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rezwana, J., & Maher, M. L. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3519026 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Reconsidering autistic ‘camouflaging’ as transactional impression management
Ai, W., Cunningham, W. A., & Lai, M.-C. (2022) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2022.05.002 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Radulescu, A., Shin, Y. S., & Niv, Y. (2021) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-092920-120559 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Butz, M. V. (2021) · KI - Künstliche Intelligenz · doi:10.1007/s13218-021-00705-x · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Rational thoughts in neural codes
Wu, Z., Kwon, M., Daptardar, S., Schrater, P., & Pitkow, X. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1912336117 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language models
Hu, J., Sosa, F., & Ullman, T. (2025) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2023.0499 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Torabian, S., & Grossman, E. D. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1168739 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Baker, C. L., Jara-Ettinger, J., Saxe, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
- Venue
- Nature Human Behaviour
- Published
- 2017-03-13
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2594035753
- Cited by
- 515
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 52 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 11
- FWCI
- 64.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Action Observation and Synchronization
- Keywords
- mentalization, theory of mind, mental state inference, partially observable Markov decision processes, expected utility, state estimation, social cognition
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
