← Back to all news
arXiv AI 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

CogGym: Towards Large-Scale Comparative Evaluation of Human and Machine Cognition

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Aug 13

On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines

arXiv:2502. 20502v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have yielded powerful computational models that, by learning from vast amounts of human-generated data, are increasingly posited as approximate models of human cognition.

By Lance Ying, Katherine M. Collins, Lionel Wong, Ilia Sucholutsky, Ryan Liu, Adrian Weller, Tianmin Shu, Thomas L. Griffiths, Joshua B. Tenenbaum
benchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Aug 17

The Metacognitive Bottleneck: Japanese Riddles Reveal Fundamental Limits of Machine Insight and Self-Evaluation in Reasoning AI

arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.

By Masaharu Mizumoto, Dat Nguyen, Zhiheng Han, Xingfu Li, Yo Nakawake, Le Minh Nguyen
llmsbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Training Object Permanence in World Models

The paper introduces WROP, a dataset of 150 hand‑designed cognitive tasks aimed at testing object permanence in video generation models. Using Blender, the authors generate over 10,000 samples per task, compiling a 1.5 M‑sample training corpus and a 300‑question exam. They evaluate 14 video models, showing that their 16B world model, PWM‑WROP, ranks first among continuation models and third overall in a blind Elo study.

By Haotian Zhang, Fengyuan Yu, Dezhi Luo, Haoran Sun, Zehong Zhao, Qingying Gao, Yihan Li, Siyuan An, Huayi Qin, Yilan Zhang, Zhengze Jiang, Pinyuan Feng, Renrui Zhang, Ziyu Guo, Letian Wang, Mengyue Yang, Kangfu Mei, Maijunxian Wang, Ran Ji, Vikash Kumar, Freda Shi, Chandra Sripada, Vincent C. Muller, Philip Torr, Alan Yuille, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, Felix Juefei-Xu, Lvmin Zhang, Jieneng Chen, Yilun Du, Hokin Deng
diffusion
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 17

WordPolo: Evaluating Language Models Through Iterative Semantic Feedback

WordPolo is a word‑finding task that evaluates language models by having them guess an unknown target word and receive semantic similarity feedback. Participants start with no knowledge, make iterative guesses, and receive distance scores that guide them through semantic space. The study tests recent LLMs, LRMs, humans, and a heuristic on 1,500 puzzles, revealing that while solve rates vary widely, many models make meaningful progress and exhibit human‑like strategies, highlighting the importance of assessing reasoning processes, not just final accuracy.

By Tyler McDonald, Ali Emami
llmsbenchmarks
More like this →