Effective collaboration requires language models to understand what others know and believe, and to act accordingly. Models that assume others share their information may omit necessary communication and undermine coordination. Many theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks assess mental-state inference through story questions, but correct answers do not establish that models can use these judgments in subsequent tasks. We introduce a multi-level evaluation built on existing, verifiable tasks. We extend household collaboration and calendar scheduling with asymmetric information while retaining their original constraints and validators. Independent interfaces assess world understanding, information access, beliefs, decisions, and execution. Controls supply personal evidence or correct beliefs to distinguish state recovery from state use. Across six model configurations, these abilities diverge. On matched scheduling cases, Claude recovers all agent beliefs correctly but produces subjectively optimal plans in only 67.9% of cases. In household collaboration, supplying beliefs raises Qwen-27B success from 55.0% to 75.0%, yet Qwen-4B answers every fixed supplied-belief source question correctly while completing only 20.0% of the corresponding continuation condition. These results show why ToM evaluation must connect perspective inference to independently verified decisions and task consequences.
Knowing when they are reliable is essential for language models to support human-AI collaboration. Yet interaction feedback is not always complete or correct, and may mislead models' understanding of their own capabilities. We introduce LADDER to study how language models assess themselves under unreliable feedback. Our findings show that models can accurately report supplied performance information while still struggling to form trustworthy self-assessments from interaction experience. Apparently accurate assessments can obscure capability differences and do not necessarily predict future task performance. These findings suggest that trustworthy self-assessment should be evaluated against observed task performance and its predictive value. Our study provides empirical evidence of the limits of model self-knowledge and a basis for evaluating capability awareness in reliable human-AI collaboration.
Haoyue Liu, Zhichao Wang, Yongxin Guo ByteDance Inc., Haoran Shou, Xiaoying Tang The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Automated prompt optimization is crucial for eliciting reliable reasoning from large language models (LLMs), yet most API-only prompt optimizers iteratively edit monolithic prompts, coupling components and obscuring credit assignment, limiting controllability, and wasting tokens. We propose Adaptive Prompt Structure Factorization (aPSF), an API-only framework (prompt-in/text-out; no access to model internals) that uses an Architect model to discover task-specific prompt structures as semantic factors. aPSF then performs interventional, single-factor updates: interventional factor-level scoring estimates each factor’s marginal contribution via validation-performance changes, and error-guided factor selection routes updates to the current dominant failure source for more sample-efficient optimization. Across multiple advanced reasoning benchmarks, aPSF outperforms strong baselines, improving accuracy by up to +4.29 percentage points on average, and reduces optimization cost by 45–87% tokens on MultiArith while reaching peak validation in 1 step.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表