CogGym is a scalable, unified framework that standardizes diverse cognitive experiments into a task‑agnostic Experiment Markup Language (EML) for systematic comparison of human and AI behavior. The initial release curates 258 experiments from 100 papers focused on human commonsense reasoning and evaluates 50 large language models, revealing a scaling trend where larger models better reproduce human judgments but still lag far behind human split‑half reliability. The framework aims to continually incorporate new cognitive science experiments to track where model behavior aligns with or diverges from human cognition as models evolve.
By Lance Ying, Jinzhou Wu, Yingshan Susan Wang, Shivam Aarya, Luca M. Schulze Buschoff, Harry Chen, Katherine M. Collins, Andrea de Varda, Shuhao Fu, Sean Dae Houlihan, Akshay K. Jagadish, Guangyuan Jiang, Samuel Kiegeland, Tetsu Kurumisawa, Rongzhi Liu, Ryan Liu, Ningshan Ma, Kathryn McGregor, Younes Strittmatter, Polina Tsvilodub, Jacob Hoover Vigly, Sarah Wu, Enjie Xu, Yiling Yun, Kelsey Allen, Tyler Brooke-Wilson, Brian Christian, Evelina Fedorenko, Michael C. Frank, Michael Franke, Tao Gao, Samuel J. Gershman, Robert D. Hawkins, Jennifer Hu, Julian Jara-Ettinger, Max Kleiman-Weiner, Sydney Levine, Tal Linzen, Hongjing Lu, Timothy O'Donnell, Desmond C. Ong, Steven T. Piantadosi, Rebecca Saxe, Eric Schulz, Tianmin Shu, Felix A. Sosa, Ilia Sucholutsky, Tan Zhi-Xuan, Tomer Ullman, Fei Xu, Ilker Yildirim, Jian-Qiao Zhu, Thomas L. Griffiths, Tobias Gerstenberg, Kevin Smith, Joshua B. Tenenbaum
arXiv:2605.06524v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as Large Language Models and autonomous agents are deployed in online sett...
By Milena Rmus, Mathew D. Hardy, Thomas L. Griffiths, Mayank Agrawal
arXiv:2602. 07267v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating the real-world capabilities of AI systems requires grounding benchmark performance in human-interpretable measures of task difficulty.
By Fengyuan Liu, Jay Gala, Nilaksh, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Siva Reddy, Hugo Larochelle
arXiv:2503. 14499v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear.
By Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley, Haoxing Du, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Luke Harold Miles, Seraphina Nix, Tao Lin, Chris Painter, Neev Parikh, David Rein, Lucas Jun Koba Sato, Hjalmar Wijk, Daniel M. Ziegler, Elizabeth Barnes, Lawrence Chan
arXiv:2607. 16239v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI judges offer a scalable, low-cost alternative to human evaluation, but their outputs can be biased relative to human preferences and highly item-dependent, varying across judges, tasks, and domains.
By Lei Shi, Anlan Zhang, Rita Lyu, Zhengmian Hu, Tong Yu, David Arbour, Avi Feller, Saayan Mitra, Ritwik Sinha
arXiv:2608. 16213v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself.
By Michael J. Richardson, Ayeh Alhasan, Cassandra Crone, M. Paula Diaz Monfort, Patrick Nalepka, Mark Dras, Rachel W. Kallen, David M. Kaplan
arXiv:2608. 05710v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When an AI system is deployed, the individuals who use and or are evaluated by it form beliefs about how the system operates and use those beliefs to strategically present their preferences, behaviors, or attributes.
By Keziah Naggita
The article "Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks" surveys the lack of a standard definition for AI agents and organizes this ambiguity into five dimensions: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal‑directed behavior, and temporal coherence. It reviews how each dimension has been conceptualized in prior work and compiles the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess them. The authors also introduce the Agent Compendium, a public digital resource that extends these evaluation methods, aiming to provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems.
By Mia Lassiter, Brinnae Bent
arXiv:2602.00685v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as simulated participants in social science experiments, but their behavior is often unstable an...
By Xuan Liu, Haoyang Shang, Zizhang Liu, Xinyan Liu, Yunze Xiao, Yiwen Tu, Haojian Jin
The paper introduces Test-Time Adaptation through Human‑Agent Interaction (TAHI), a method that uses iterative human feedback to adapt AI agents to individual users’ criteria. By integrating cross‑session interaction data into agent context and weights, and building an evolving rubric module, the authors demonstrate that agents can improve task success by 4.5–20.9% after only a few interactions. The evolving rubric also serves as a scalable annotation tool, detecting 16.0–22.3% more failures than language models or humans alone, and personalized agents can even generalize improvements up to 8.8% across users.
By Zora Zhiruo Wang, Apurva Gandhi, Rulin Shao, Aspen Chen, Jonas Mueller, Zhiqi Liang, Jett Chen, Michael Ryan, Qianou Ma, Luxi He, Zhoujun Cheng, Andre He, Seungone Kim, Jiayi Geng, Mingqian Zheng, Weiwei Sun, Zheyuan Zhang, Xinran Zhao, Yike Wang, Abe Hou, Liwei Jiang, Pang Wei Koh, Diyi Yang, Graham Neubig, Daniel Fried
arXiv:2608. 13577v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This position paper argues that the dominant paradigm of AI evaluation (which focuses on superhuman autonomous performance and so implicitly targets the goal of replacing humans) is guiding AI development in the wrong direction.
By Jan Kulveit, Gavin Leech, Tom\'a\v{s} Gaven\v{c}iak, Raymond Douglas
The paper surveys 160 benchmarks from 2017‑2026 that evaluate predictive embodied intelligence, categorising them into policy suites, embodied agents, world‑model evaluation, and prediction‑to‑action bridges. It finds that most benchmarks are model‑agnostic, rarely compare Vision‑Language‑Action policies to world models, and seldom turn predictions into executed actions. The authors argue that the lack of benchmarks designed to directly test the closed‑loop advantage of world models prevents the field from answering whether such models truly improve robotic performance.
By Gaytri Jena, Kapil Wanaskar, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Vasu Sharma, Amitava Das