Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
We investigate whether quantized low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) fine-tuning improves theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning in a small language model, and whether apparent cross-benchmark transfer survives control for response-position bias. We fine-tuned 4-bit Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct with low-rank (LoRA) adapters on ToMBench under a story-disjoint split with five seeds. Because fine-tuning shifted the model’s answer-letter preference on every benchmark, we evaluated all models under cyclic permutation of answer options, placing each gold answer in every position once. Held-out ToMBench accuracy rose by +8.15 points (between-seed 95% interval [+7.46, +8.85]), against +14.01 under an item-level split, consistent with story overlap inflating the item-level estimate. On external benchmarks, ToMi improved (+14.19 [+11.87, +16.50]), mostly on items where only the gold answer appears in the story, whereas SocialIQa, OpenToM and Hi-ToM showed no direction; a SocialIQa decline under the item-level split (−4.14) disappeared under the story-disjoint split. Training-free three-shot prompting under the same permutation raised ToMi accuracy by +7.23 points with content-free format exemplars and +12.96 with rationale exemplars but did not reproduce the in-domain gain. We therefore do not read the ToMi gain as transfer of ToM reasoning, and we conclude that cross-benchmark claims for ToM fine-tuning require a position-invariant evaluation and a prompting baseline under the same control.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hong et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: