Beyond Words: Evaluating and Bridging Epistemic Divergence in User-Agent Interaction via Theory of Mind

Large Language Models (LLMs) have developed rapidly and are widely applied to both general-purpose and professional tasks to assist human users. However, they still struggle to comprehend and respond to the true user needs when intentions and instructions are imprecisely conveyed, leading to a divergence between subjective user believes and true environment states. Resolving this epistemic divergence requires Theory of Mind (ToM), yet existing ToM evaluations for LLMs primarily focus on isolated belief inference, overlooking its functional utility in real-world interaction. To this end, we formalize ToM for LLMs as a mechanism for epistemic divergence detection and resolution, and propose a benchmark, \benchname, to assess how models reconcile user beliefs and profiles in practice. Results across 11 leading models reveal a significant limitation to identify underlying cognitive gaps that impede task success. To bridge this gap, we further curate a trajectory-based ToM dataset linking belief tracking with task-related state inference. The model trained on this data via reinforcement learning shows consistent improvement in reasoning about user mental states, leading to enhanced downstream performance. Our work highlights the practical value of ToM as an essential interaction-level mechanism rather than as a standalone reasoning skill.

Doctor-R1: Mastering Clinical Inquiry with Experiential Agentic Reinforcement Learning

The professionalism of a human doctor in outpatient service depends on two core abilities: the ability to make accurate medical decisions and the medical consultation skill to conduct strategic, empathetic patient inquiry. Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable accuracy on medical decision-making benchmarks. However, they often lack the ability to conduct the strategic and empathetic consultation, which is essential for real-world clinical scenarios. To address this gap, we propose Doctor-R1, an AI doctor agent trained to master both of the capabilities by ask high-yield questions and conduct strategic multi-turn inquiry to guide decision-making. Our framework introduces three key components: a multi-agent interactive environment, a two-tiered reward architecture that separately optimizes clinical decision-making and communicative inquiry skills, and an experience repository to ground policy learning in high-quality prior trajectories. We evaluate Doctor-R1 on OpenAI's HealthBench and MAQuE, assessed across multi-facet metrics, such as communication quality, user experience, and task accuracy. Remarkably, Doctor-R1 surpasses state-of-the-art open-source specialized LLMs by a substantial margin with higher parameter efficiency and outperforms powerful proprietary models. Furthermore, the human evaluations show a strong preference for Doctor-R1 to generate human-preferred clinical dialogue, demonstrating the effectiveness of the framework.

Agent Hospital: A Simulacrum of Hospital with Evolvable Medical Agents

In this paper, we introduce a simulacrum of hospital called Agent Hospital that simulates the entire process of treating illness. All patients, nurses, and doctors are autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs). Our central goal is to enable a doctor agent to learn how to treat illness within the simulacrum. To do so, we propose a method called MedAgent-Zero. As the simulacrum can simulate disease onset and progression based on knowledge bases and LLMs, doctor agents can keep accumulating experience from both successful and unsuccessful cases. Simulation experiments show that the treatment performance of doctor agents consistently improves on various tasks. More interestingly, the knowledge the doctor agents have acquired in Agent Hospital is applicable to real-world medicare benchmarks. After treating around ten thousand patients (real-world doctors may take over two years), the evolved doctor agent achieves a state-of-the-art accuracy of 93.06% on a subset of the MedQA dataset that covers major respiratory diseases. This work paves the way for advancing the applications of LLM-powered agent techniques in medical scenarios.

ToMBench: Benchmarking Theory of Mind in Large Language Models

Theory of Mind (ToM) is the cognitive capability to perceive and ascribe mental states to oneself and others. Recent research has sparked a debate over whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a form of ToM. However, existing ToM evaluations are hindered by challenges such as constrained scope, subjective judgment, and unintended contamination, yielding inadequate assessments. To address this gap, we introduce ToMBench with three key characteristics: a systematic evaluation framework encompassing 8 tasks and 31 abilities in social cognition, a multiple-choice question format to support automated and unbiased evaluation, and a build-from-scratch bilingual inventory to strictly avoid data leakage. Based on ToMBench, we conduct extensive experiments to evaluate the ToM performance of 10 popular LLMs across tasks and abilities. We find that even the most advanced LLMs like GPT-4 lag behind human performance by over 10% points, indicating that LLMs have not achieved a human-level theory of mind yet. Our aim with ToMBench is to enable an efficient and effective evaluation of LLMs' ToM capabilities, thereby facilitating the development of LLMs with inherent social intelligence.