Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Modeling the Mistakes of Boundedly Rational Agents Within a Bayesian Theory of Mind

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2106.13249 v1 pith:BICC5ZWW submitted 2021-06-24 cs.AI q-bio.NC

classification cs.AIq-bio.NC
keywords agentsgoalsmodelingbayesianhumanmindmistakesothers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

When inferring the goals that others are trying to achieve, people intuitively understand that others might make mistakes along the way. This is crucial for activities such as teaching, offering assistance, and deciding between blame or forgiveness. However, Bayesian models of theory of mind have generally not accounted for these mistakes, instead modeling agents as mostly optimal in achieving their goals. As a result, they are unable to explain phenomena like locking oneself out of one's house, or losing a game of chess. Here, we extend the Bayesian Theory of Mind framework to model boundedly rational agents who may have mistaken goals, plans, and actions. We formalize this by modeling agents as probabilistic programs, where goals may be confused with semantically similar states, plans may be misguided due to resource-bounded planning, and actions may be unintended due to execution errors. We present experiments eliciting human goal inferences in two domains: (i) a gridworld puzzle with gems locked behind doors, and (ii) a block-stacking domain. Our model better explains human inferences than alternatives, while generalizing across domains. These findings indicate the importance of modeling others as bounded agents, in order to account for the full richness of human intuitive psychology.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Belief Attribution as Mental Explanation: The Role of Accuracy, Informativity, and Causality

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    When people say what an agent believes, they prefer beliefs that are causally relevant to the agent's actions, more than beliefs that are merely accurate or informative.

  2. Machine Theory of Mind and the Structure of Human Values

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Human values are claimed to have a rational instrumental structure that lets AI infer unseen values from known ones, framing this as the 'value generalization problem' in AI safety.

Pith tools