Learning Dynamic Belief Graphs for Theory-of-mind Reasoning

Paper: 2603.20170 Authors: Ruxiao Chen, Xilei Zhao, Thomas J. Cova, Frank A. Drews, Susu Xu Categories: cs.AI

Abstract

Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning with Large Language Models requires inferring how people’s implicit, evolving beliefs shape what they seek and how they act under uncertainty – especially in high-stakes settings such as disaster response, emergency medicine, and human-in-the-loop autonomy. Prior approaches either prompt LLMs directly or use latent-state models that treat beliefs as static and independent, often producing incoherent mental models over time and weak reasoning in dynamic contexts.

This paper introduces a structured cognitive trajectory model for LLM-based ToM that represents mental state as a dynamic belief graph, jointly inferring latent beliefs, learning their time-varying dependencies, and linking belief evolution to information seeking and decisions.

The Problem: Static and Independent Beliefs

Current Limitations

Existing LLM-based Theory of Mind approaches have critical weaknesses:

1. Static beliefs: Beliefs are treated as fixed snapshots rather than evolving states
2. Independence assumption: Beliefs are modeled independently, ignoring how they reinforce or suppress each other
3. Weak temporal coherence: No mechanism to maintain consistency as beliefs update over time
4. Post-hoc rationalization: Beliefs are inferred after actions rather than causally driving them

Why This Matters in High-Stakes Scenarios

In disaster evacuation, emergency response, or medical triage:

• Beliefs evolve rapidly with new observations (wildfire alert → seeing flames → neighbor evacuating)
• Beliefs interact (risk perception + social cues + resource availability)
• Actions are delayed until belief thresholds are crossed
• Coherence is critical for predicting behavior accurately

The Solution: Dynamic Belief Graphs

Core Innovation

The paper introduces three key components:

1. Dynamic Belief Graph Representation

• Mental states represented as graphs where nodes are beliefs and edges capture dependencies
• Beliefs evolve over time based on observations and past states
• Graph structure captures how beliefs reinforce or inhibit each other

2. Semantic-to-Potential Projection

• Maps LLM semantic embeddings to probabilistic graphical model updates
• Learns unary potentials (individual belief strengths) and pairwise potentials (belief interactions)
• Ensures consistency between language-derived evidence and probabilistic reasoning

3. Belief-Conditioned Action Model

• Actions depend on the full belief graph state, not individual beliefs
• Action-specific self-attention captures nonlinear belief-action relationships
• Models threshold-crossing behavior (act when beliefs reach critical levels)

Mathematical Framework

The model uses an energy-based factor graph representation:

p(beliefs | observations) ∝ exp(-E(beliefs))
E(beliefs) = Σ unary_potentials + Σ pairwise_potentials

Training optimizes an ELBO (Evidence Lower Bound) objective that:

• Maximizes action-trajectory likelihood
• Enforces belief accumulation dynamics
• Captures delayed decision-making

Key Contributions

1. Novel projection mechanism: Converts LLM semantic outputs into consistent probabilistic updates
2. Energy-based belief interdependencies: Learns how beliefs interact rather than assuming independence
3. ELBO-based joint learning: Trains belief dynamics and action prediction together
4. Online belief updating: At test time, updates beliefs from observations alone without retraining

Evaluation: Wildfire Evacuation Datasets

The model was evaluated on real-world disaster evacuation datasets where people decide when to evacuate during wildfires.

Results

• Significantly improved action prediction compared to baseline LLM prompting and static belief models
• Recovered interpretable belief trajectories consistent with human reasoning patterns
• Captured threshold-crossing behavior where beliefs accumulate until triggering evacuation
• Maintained temporal coherence across long observation sequences

Example Belief Trajectory

t0 (Normal): Low risk perception
t1 (Wildfire Alert): Medium risk, seeking information
t2 (See Flames): High risk, preparing to act
t3 (Neighbor Evacuates): Very high risk → EVACUATE

The model correctly captures:

• Gradual belief accumulation
• Social influence (neighbor’s action)
• Delayed action until threshold crossed

Implications for AI Systems

Augmenting LLMs with ToM

This framework provides a principled module for equipping LLMs with Theory of Mind capabilities:

• Human-AI collaboration: Better predict human needs and intentions
• Autonomous systems: Reason about human behavior in shared environments
• Emergency response: Model evacuation decisions, medical triage, crisis management
• Explainable AI: Provide interpretable belief trajectories for decision support

Beyond Disaster Response

The approach generalizes to any domain where:

• Beliefs evolve with observations
• Multiple beliefs interact
• Actions depend on accumulated evidence
• Temporal coherence matters

Examples: financial decision-making, medical diagnosis, negotiation, game playing.

Technical Insights

Why Belief Graphs?

Traditional approaches treat beliefs as independent variables, but human cognition involves:

• Confirmation bias: Beliefs reinforce each other
• Cognitive dissonance: Conflicting beliefs create tension
• Social influence: Others’ beliefs affect our own
• Threshold effects: Actions trigger when beliefs cross critical levels

Belief graphs naturally capture these phenomena through learned edge potentials.

Why ELBO Training?

The ELBO objective ensures:

• Belief-action consistency: Inferred beliefs must explain observed actions
• Temporal smoothness: Beliefs evolve gradually, not erratically
• Uncertainty quantification: Model maintains distributions over beliefs
• Generalization: Learns patterns from data rather than relying on frozen LLM priors

Limitations and Future Work

Current Limitations

• Requires action-trajectory data for training (not just observations)
• Belief graph structure is predefined (though potentials are learned)
• Evaluated primarily on evacuation scenarios
• Computational cost of belief graph inference

Future Directions

• Structure learning: Automatically discover belief graph topology
• Multi-agent extension: Model belief interactions between multiple people
• Active learning: Decide what observations to gather to reduce belief uncertainty
• Real-time deployment: Optimize inference for online decision support systems

Takeaways

1. Static beliefs are insufficient for modeling human reasoning in dynamic, high-stakes scenarios
2. Belief interdependencies matter – beliefs reinforce, suppress, and interact with each other
3. LLMs need structure – combining semantic understanding with probabilistic reasoning improves coherence
4. Joint learning works – training belief dynamics and action prediction together ensures consistency
5. Real-world validation – the approach successfully models actual human evacuation decisions

This work represents an important step toward LLM-based AI systems that can reason about human mental states in realistic, high-stakes environments. By combining the semantic power of LLMs with structured probabilistic modeling, it achieves both interpretability and predictive accuracy.

The framework opens new possibilities for human-AI collaboration in emergency response, autonomous systems, and any domain requiring understanding of how beliefs evolve and drive behavior.