$\texttt{DIAMONDs}$: A Dataset for $\mathbb{D}$ynamic $\mathbb{I}$nformation $\mathbb{A}$nd $\mathbb{M}$ental modeling $\mathbb{O}$f $\mathbb{N}$umeric $\mathbb{D}$iscussions

TL;DR

This paper introduces DIAMONDs, a new dataset designed to evaluate Theory of Mind in multiparty conversations, focusing on dynamic information tracking and numerical reasoning in goal-oriented discussions.

Contribution

The paper presents a scalable methodology for creating high-quality conversational QA datasets and introduces DIAMONDs, enabling precise evaluation of ToM capabilities in complex, real-world conversations.

Findings

State-of-the-art models struggle with participant-centric reasoning.

Models have difficulty handling false beliefs and distractors.

Limited ability to identify insufficient information scenarios.

Abstract

Understanding multiparty conversations demands robust Theory of Mind (ToM) capabilities, including the ability to track dynamic information, manage knowledge asymmetries, and distinguish relevant information across extended exchanges. To advance ToM evaluation in such settings, we present a carefully designed scalable methodology for generating high-quality benchmark conversation-question pairs with these characteristics. Using this methodology, we create $\texttt{DIAMONDs}$, a new conversational QA dataset covering common business, financial or other group interactions. In these goal-oriented conversations, participants often have to track certain numerical quantities (say $\textit{expected profit}$) of interest that can be derived from other variable quantities (like $\textit{marketing expenses, expected sales, salary}$, etc.), whose values also change over the course of the conversation. $\texttt{DIAMONDs}$ questions pose simple numerical reasoning problems over such quantities of interest (e.g., $\textit{funds required for charity events, expected company profit next quarter}$, etc.) in the context of the information exchanged in conversations. This allows for precisely evaluating ToM capabilities for carefully tracking and reasoning over participants' knowledge states. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art language models reveals significant challenges in handling participant-centric reasoning, specifically in situations where participants have false beliefs. Models also struggle with conversations containing distractors and show limited ability to identify scenarios with insufficient information. These findings highlight current models' ToM limitations in handling real-world multi-party conversations.