Dialogue and collaborative assistants repeatedly judge what a partner knows, believes, or intends. Typed decision models offer a potential alternative to generative large language models for bounded Theory of Mind (ToM) selection. We present Jev-ToM, comparing five typed decision models and seven generative baselines on 11,117 English text questions from nine ToM benchmarks across six capability groups. TypeSafe Jev reaches 73.2% source-balanced accuracy including native controls and ranks first or second across all six capabilities, leading beliefs, goals/desires/intentions, and emotions. Other typed models show distinct strengths across tasks. Separate resource comparisons suggest that Jev could reduce the cost and waiting time of repeated ToM selection. Confidence-based selection remains benchmark-dependent, and supplied reasons can repair errors or overturn correct answers depending on their attachment. Candidate expansion reveals distinct selection and output-validity problems. Related-question cues account for most of Jev's downstream gains, with task-dependent effects from predicted states. The findings motivate testing Jev as a ToM selection component in assistants, with task-specific confidence calibration, candidate design, and output validation as integration priorities.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Coverage of evaluated subsets and their union ( ✓ : present, × : absent).
Benchmark
Questions
Families
Options
BigToM
1,200
50
2
OpenToM
2,533
149
2/3
ToMBench
730
323
2/4
SimpleToM
891
177
2
FANToM
1,805
64
2
ToMATO
1,396
40
4
Table 1: Evaluated benchmark subsets.
Figure 2: Accuracy (%) for knowledge access, beliefs, goals/desires/intentions, emotions, social pragmatics, and mental-state application, averaged equally across contributing benchmarks. Panels sort models by accuracy, with typed models colored and generative baselines gray. Benchmark control questions and unmapped questions are excluded.
Model
BigToM
OpenToM
ToMBench
SimpleToM
FANToM
ToMATO
CogToM
Hi-ToM
ToMi
Overall
Jev-1.13
89.2
60.0
76.7
59.1
79.6
83.6
81.3
59.7
69.7
73.2
Open-Jev-2B
80.4
45.2
51.4
49.7
71.5
50.1
49.4
39.6
72.0
56.6
Valen
74.9
38.1
46.0
75.1
48.6
32.7
39.4
33.1
57.9
49.5
Tiny-Jev
73.9
34.0
41.5
20.9
71.2
54.2
39.9
30.5
47.2
45.9
OpenJev-0.6B
74.6
39.1
40.7
56.9
29.1
20.0
42.5
31.8
53.9
43.2
GPT-3.5-1106
86.9
61.8
75.1
55.2
77.6
81.6
78.1
55.8
72.4
71.6
Table 2: Exact-match accuracy (%) on 11,117 questions, including native controls. Overall weights benchmarks equally. Invalid outputs count as errors. Bold/underlined values mark group best/second-best, with blue/green for typed/generative models. Excluding controls, Jev scores 69.1% and GPT-3.5 70.9%.
Figure 3: Jev answer selection at confidence ≥0.90 : coverage (left, % of all questions) and retained error (right, % of retained answers). Both panels follow descending error rate. Hi-ToM retains 33 answers.
Figure 4: Fresh Jev answer accuracy on earlier correct and incorrect cases. C/W/N/–: reference/selected incorrect/neutral/absent reasons. Dashed: fresh no-reason baseline.
Figure 5: Strict answer-component accuracy changes for aligned and crossed reasons, ordered by aligned gains on new materials. Repair and Damage: Jev’s contributions (percentage points of all weighted outcomes) on new materials. Benchmarks receive equal weight.
Figure 6: Crossed-pair outcomes on all 4,761 materials, averaging both candidate orders and benchmarks equally. “Both correct” is strict joint accuracy, and “only” identifies the correct component. Failures stay in the denominator. Rows sort by both-correct share, with tints on a 0–100% scale.
Figure 7: Joint answer–reason accuracy on 108 questions (one per family) from CogToM, ToMATO, and ToMBench, with two orders and equal benchmark weights. Candidate Changes: strict changes from the original eight-pair set after reattachment or expansion to sixteen. Strict vs Saved: post-hoc scoring reads choices despite invalid probabilities without repairing them.
Figure 8: Accuracy versus OpenRouter reference cost (left) and observed deployment time with differing concurrency (right). Shading marks lower accuracy with higher cost (left) or longer response time (right) than Jev.
Model / task
Original
Question only
Predicted state
Flipped state
Jev-1.13
78.50
89.25
93.00
86.25
Open-Jev-2B
66.50
64.00
64.75
61.75
Valen
62.75
60.50
59.75
60.00
Tiny-Jev
48.50
52.50
51.50
52.50
OpenJev-0.6B
61.50
55.00
51.25
51.00
Jev: BigToM
92.00
98.00
97.50
97.00
Table 3: Accuracy (%) on 400 additional questions from families outside the primary sample, equally weighting 200 BigToM and 200 SimpleToM targets. The last rows show Jev by source. Its same-template fixed-No replay matches SimpleToM predicted feedback at 88.5%.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Study and cohort
Sample
Target and candidate construction
Aggregation
Primary / 12 models
11,117 questions, nine benchmarks
K original answers, answer accuracy
Equal benchmark weights
Confidence / Jev
Same 11,117 primary questions
Selected-answer probability, coverage and retained error
Within benchmark
Six conditions / Jev
1,803 materials, split 249 / 1,554 by earlier correctness
K answers with six reason conditions, two orders
Pooled within historical group
Reason pairs / 8 models
4,761 materials: 1,803 reused and 2,958 new
K answers, K aligned pairs, K2 crossed pairs, two orders
Equal benchmark weights
Matched candidates / 2 models
108 questions, one per family, three benchmarks
Joint selection among 4, 8, or 16 pairs, two orders
Equal benchmark weights
Feedback / 5 typed models
200 BigToM and 200 SimpleToM pairs, 300 families
Upstream binary state, downstream selection under four suffix conditions
Equal benchmark weights
Appendix
Table 4: Overview of the main comparisons. Condition and order variants reuse questions. K denotes original answer count. Costs use seven priced deployments, and timing uses eight. The full pair study also records reason-only controls.
Benchmark
K
B
G
E
S
A
C
U
N
Families
BigToM
–
400
–
–
–
200
600
–
1,200
50
OpenToM
–
2384
149
–
–
–
–
–
2,533
149
ToMBench
78
218
145
103
186
152
–
–
730
323
SimpleToM
297
–
–
–
–
594
–
–
891
177
FANToM
1446
227
–
–
–
–
132
–
1,805
64
ToMATO
305
289
546
256
–
–
–
–
1,396
40
Appendix
Table 5: Benchmark-to-capability question counts. K/B/G/E/S/A denote knowledge, beliefs, goals/desires/intentions, emotions, social pragmatics, and application. C/U denote native controls and unmapped CogToM items. The 152 ToMBench application assignments overlap other capabilities. A dash indicates no assigned questions.
Benchmark
Questions
Families
Options
Words: median
BigToM
1,200
50
2
69
OpenToM
2,533
149
2/3
196
ToMBench
730
323
2/4
61
SimpleToM
891
177
2
36
FANToM
1,805
64
2
566
ToMATO
1,396
40
4
539
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluated-subset statistics. Words are whitespace-delimited units in the original state, excluding questions and options.
Table 7: Model versions and primary evaluation settings. All models receive one question per request without task-specific fine-tuning.
Capability
N
Jev 1.13
GPT-3.5 1106
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-4o mini
DeepSeek V4-Flash
GPT-4.1 nano
Llama-3.1 8B
Open-Jev 2B
Valen
SmolLM3 3B
Tiny-Jev
OpenJev 0.6B
Cross-source capability atlas
Knowledge access
2,338
73.6
76.1
72.6
71.6
63.3
55.3
54.9
43.9
39.1
36.5
35.7
23.4
Beliefs
4,178
68.4
66.9
63.5
54.3
55.3
51.8
48.2
43.6
44.7
34.8
40.2
31.8
Goals, desires and intentions
1,309
78.5
74.4
76.2
68.8
69.0
62.7
65.3
52.0
40.0
45.9
48.4
36.6
Emotions
690
84.8
79.7
79.5
74.8
77.5
73.0
65.7
59.1
41.0
56.2
55.2
43.5
Social pragmatics
383
89.1
82.5
84.9
80.1
89.9
74.4
74.8
52.5
50.1
51.3
53.8
56.4
Appendix
Table 8: Capability exact match (%), part 1. Cross-source rows average contributing benchmarks, while source rows pool assigned questions. Controls and unassigned items enter only All. Overlapping application assignments do not sum to benchmark totals. Bold marks the highest point estimate.
Capability
N
Jev 1.13
GPT-3.5 1106
GPT-5.6 Luna
GPT-4o mini
DeepSeek V4-Flash
GPT-4.1 nano
Llama-3.1 8B
Open-Jev 2B
Valen
SmolLM3 3B
Tiny-Jev
OpenJev 0.6B
FANToM
Knowledge access
1,446
81.3
82.6
77.4
82.0
63.0
70.3
60.7
77.6
49.3
49.1
78.4
32.2
Beliefs
227
73.1
35.2
24.2
21.6
39.6
38.3
28.2
17.6
32.2
4.4
12.3
7.0
Control
132
72.0
94.7
97.7
95.5
86.4
86.4
90.9
97.0
69.7
30.3
93.9
34.1
All
1,805
79.6
77.6
72.2
75.3
61.8
67.5
58.8
71.5
48.6
42.1
71.2
29.1
ToMATO
Appendix
Table 9: Capability exact match (%), part 2, using the same model order and scoring as Table 8 . Missing source–capability combinations are omitted.
Model
All questions
Control-free
GPT-3.5-1106
71.62
70.87
Jev-1.13
73.21
69.08
GPT-5.6-Luna
70.85
68.55
GPT-4o-mini
66.29
61.59
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
65.40
60.22
GPT-4.1-nano
61.31
57.14
Appendix
Table 10: Benchmark-equal exact match with all 11,117 questions and after removing 920 native controls. Control-free scores retain 10,197 questions, including unmapped items. Rows descend by control-free accuracy.
Source
Questions
Kept
Wrong
BigToM
1,200
973
44
OpenToM
2,533
1,583
459
ToMBench
730
397
39
SimpleToM
891
418
146
FANToM
1,805
923
67
ToMATO
1,396
651
12
Appendix
Table 11: Counts for Jev selection at probability ≥0.90 . Coverage uses all questions, while retained error uses Kept. Native controls remain included.
Figure 9: Jev risk–coverage curves on the same 11,117 primary questions as the main confidence analysis. Coverage is the percentage of all benchmark questions retained, and error is the percentage of retained answers that are incorrect. Each point retains all answers at or above one observed selected-answer probability, keeping ties together. Orange markers denote the 0.90 threshold.
Annotation coverage / follow-up outcome
Questions
Initial sample / targeted follow-up / overlap
450 / 249 / 19
Combined unique questions
680
Majority reference / unanimous / no majority
219 / 211 / 30
Majority references matching benchmark categories
219/219
Appendix
Table 12: Annotation coverage and Jev intervention results under benchmark and human-majority references. The 19 overlaps count once. Majority references require at least two matching single-category votes, with unanimous cases included. Both orders yield 498 full-group and 438 majority-subset responses per condition. Accuracy is pooled (%), differences are paired percentage points, and intervals use 2,000 within-benchmark family-bootstrap draws.
Model
Materials
No reasons
Aligned
Crossed
Jev-1.13
Reused
22.93
74.35
65.10
Jev-1.13
New
88.10
91.79
87.70
GPT-5.6-Luna
Reused
36.31
70.05
67.19
GPT-5.6-Luna
New
81.79
88.90
86.15
GPT-3.5-1106
Reused
36.36
72.35
60.52
GPT-3.5-1106
New
82.21
88.38
81.58
Appendix
Table 13: Absolute answer-component accuracy on reused/new reason materials and Jev repair/damage contributions on new materials. Accuracies average benchmarks equally. Reused/new contain 1,803/2,958 existing questions. Repair and signed damage use all weighted outcomes.
Condition
Jev strict
Jev saved choice
GPT-3.5 strict
Jev invalid
Answers only
71.30
72.22
71.76
2
Four original pairs
85.65
85.65
79.63
0
Four reassigned pairs
92.13
92.59
91.20
1
Eight original- attachment pairs
81.02
84.26
76.39
10
Eight reassigned pairs
83.33
87.04
84.26
8
All sixteen pairs
76.39
82.41
62.50
16
Appendix
Table 14: Matched-candidate accuracy (%) on 108 questions in two orders, with equal benchmark weights. Jev invalid counts use 216 responses per row, and GPT-3.5 has no invalid outcomes. Answer-only measures answer accuracy, while pair rows measure joint accuracy. Post-hoc saved-choice scoring does not replace strict results.
Final failure type
Jev
DeepSeek
Probability sum
448
0
Selected choice below maximum
3
0
Parsing / candidate ID
0
4
HTTP 429
0
843
Invalid / failed
451
847
All crossed responses
9,522
9,522
Appendix
Table 15: Final crossed-pair failures. Counts are pooled across two orders, while Figure 6 uses equal benchmark weights. Earlier failed transport attempts are not additional outcomes.
Figure 10: Unfilled excerpts from the annotation interface. Initial Answer: story, question, options, and the initial-answer form, saved before reasons are revealed. Reason Judgments: label guide and the first option’s reason-judgment fields, repeated for every option. The bilingual interface is shown in English for readability.
Model
Task
Belief/awareness
Original
Question
Predicted
Flipped
Jev-1.13
BigToM action
84.50
92.00
98.00
97.50
97.00
Jev-1.13
SimpleToM behavior
91.00
65.00
80.50
88.50
75.50
Open-Jev-2B
BigToM action
58.50
73.00
71.50
67.50
66.50
Open-Jev-2B
SimpleToM behavior
19.00
60.00
56.50
62.00
57.00
Valen
BigToM action
56.50
60.50
58.00
58.00
57.50
Valen
SimpleToM behavior
61.50
65.00
63.00
61.50
62.50
Appendix
Table 16: Mental-state feedback accuracy (%) by model and source, with 200 native upstream questions and 200 action/behavior targets per source. The upstream belief/awareness score is measured once per model. The four downstream conditions use the same target questions.
Model
Question
Predicted
Fixed No
Changed choices
Jev-1.13
161
177
177
0
Open-Jev-2B
113
124
113
11
Valen
126
123
125
2
Tiny-Jev
99
97
94
5
OpenJev-0.6B
118
103
103
18
Appendix
Table 17: Correct answers out of 200 SimpleToM behavior targets for question-only cues, predicted feedback, and the same-template fixed-No replay. Changed choices compares fixed No with predicted feedback on all 200 targets. Every output is valid. The replay selects the existing predicted or flipped response whose supplied answer is No, retaining the original attribution header and including every target exactly once.
Model
Input
Output
Total
Per 1k
TypeSafe Jev
0.0420
0.0000
0.3284
0.0295
GPT-4.1 nano
0.1000
0.4000
0.4876
0.0439
GPT-4o mini
0.1500
0.6000
0.7517
0.0676
GPT-5.6 Luna
0.2000
1.2000
9.9929
0.8989
Llama-3.1-8B
0.0500
0.0800
0.2463
0.0222
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
0.0108
1.2800
0.1535
0.0138
Appendix
Table 18: Resource comparison on 11,117 questions per deployment. The cost panel contains only seven priced models. Input/output tariffs are US dollars per million tokens, Total covers all questions, and Per 1k includes missing-usage allowances. GPT-3.5 uses a historical tariff. The timing panel includes all eight deployments. Attempts is the maximum total per question, and NR means not recorded.
Theory of Mind (ToM) is essential for agent interactions, yet existing evaluations either rely on static scenarios that oversimplify mental-state reasoning or interactive settings that provide limited diagnostic insight. We present Avalon-ToM-Bench, a fine-grained benchmark that operationalizes ToM through the asymmetric-information mechanics of The Resistance: Avalon. Rather than evaluating end-to-end gameplay, it decomposes ToM into a 2×2 taxonomy -- epistemic versus motivational reasoning crossed with inference versus action -- using human-crafted, perspective-constrained queries. Benchmarking 28 LLMs reveals three insights: 1) Reasoning, not knowledge. Models show strong game-rule comprehension but markedly weaker ToM abilities, isolating failures to social reasoning rather than missing domain knowledge. 2) Expression, not representation. Mechanistic analyses via linear probing and activation steering show that models frequently represent correct mental-state inferences in their hidden states but fail to express them during generation -- linear probes recover 77-82% accuracy versus 62-70% from the models' own chain-of-thought. 3) Policy, not deliberation. Dedicated reasoning training yields substantial improvements whereas test-time chain-of-thought provides only marginal gains (+11.0 versus +1.1 points on average), suggesting that robust ToM depends on a learned reasoning policy rather than increased inference-time deliberation.
Yen-Shan Chen, Yu Chian Duan, Chih-En Kuo +2
1National Taiwan University · 2CyCraft AI Lab, Taiwan
Typed decision models (TDMs) return probability distributions over caller-defined options without generating text. TypeSafe released Jev, a commercial typed decision model, on 15 September 2026, and a small body of evaluation and replication work appeared within days. We review 28 papers posted between 19 and 24 September and relate their findings to earlier work on label-probability classification, constrained decoding, reranking, calibration, and model cascades. In this early literature, the typed readout itself has not shown an independent accuracy advantage over comparable label-probability readouts. Jev's clearest gains are in latency and cost, while accuracy gaps remain on harder tasks. In practical deployments, confidence is often used to decide when to defer to a stronger model or a human. We use recurring weaknesses in these studies to derive a 14-item evaluation checklist for future TDM work. Because the evidence covers only the first nine days after the release of one hosted model, the review should be read as an early evidence map rather than a settled assessment of the model class.
We introduce DialToM, an annotated Theory of Mind (ToM) benchmark built from naturalistic human-human dialogues using a multiple-choice evaluation framework. Concurrent with recent work showing a gap between explicit mental-state inference and applied ToM in synthetic settings~\cite{gu2024simpletom}, we establish a stricter State-Driven Diagnostic Probe in which models must forecast state-consistent dialogue trajectories solely from isolated mental-state profiles without dialogue context. Our evaluation reveals a systematic reasoning asymmetry -- LLMs excel at inferring mental states (Literal ToM) but struggle to leverage them for social forecasting (Functional ToM). Crucially, a domain expert achieves 100% accuracy on this task, proving its validity and establishing a stark human-AI capability gap. Further, a teacher-student reasoning injection probe shows that Gemini 3 Pro -- which establishes the leading baseline -- possesses robust Functional ToM capabilities for context-free forecasting that are transferable to weaker models. DialToM, its evaluation code, and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/Stealth-py/DialToM.