# Collaborative Theory of Mind: Learning to Self-Revise by Anticipating User Responses

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.12872 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.12872/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 17 of its 26 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-benchmarks-and-evaluation/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.06796/) (2022)
- [Machine Theory of Mind](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.07740/) (2018)
- [FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15421/) (2023)
- [CollabLLM: From Passive Responders to Active Collaborators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.00640/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Human-Language Model Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09746/) (2022)
- [Training Proactive and Personalized LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02208/) (2025)
- [On Overcoming Miscalibrated Conversational Priors in LLM-based Chatbots](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01633/) (2024)
- [TOM-SWE: User Mental Modeling For Software Engineering Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21903/) (2025)
- [Beyond Words: Evaluating and Bridging Epistemic Divergence in User-Agent Interaction via Theory of Mind](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.13832/) (2026)
- [Does Theory of Mind Improvement Really Benefit Human-AI Interactions? Empirical Findings from Interactive Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.15205/) (2026)
- [From Task Success to Productive Success: Evaluating Human-AI Collaboration by Quality and Cost](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.21117/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong individual task performance, yet still struggle to collaborate with users over extended, multi-turn interactions, for example by attempting solutions before understanding the user's needs or by failing to revise mistaken assumptions after receiving feedback. We propose Collaborative Theory of Mind (CToM), a framework that addresses these challenges by explicitly training LLMs to anticipate user responses and to use those predictions to improve their own behavior. CToM drafts a response, predicts how the user will respond, and uses this prediction to guide internal revision before presenting a response. During training, the user's reply to each draft serves as the target for predicting the next turn, and we train the assistant to minimize the negative log-likelihood of that reply. We combine this prediction objective with group-relative policy optimization (GRPO) to optimize both task performance and interaction efficiency. Across mathematical reasoning, coding, and writing tasks, CToM achieves higher collaborative task performance than all baselines; for example, on a collaborative mathematical reasoning task, it improves final accuracy from 74.1% to 79.6% compared with naive GRPO. Ablations show that predicting user responses also makes collaboration more efficient: under the same reward, adding prediction supervision reduces the number of user replies by 8% on coding and 17% on writing while improving task performance. Behavioral analyses of interaction trajectories show that user-response predictions become more accurate after training, and that more accurate predictions are associated with larger improvements in collaborative task performance through self-revision.