Triangulating LLM Progress through Benchmarks, Games, and Cognitive Tests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14359v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:36:58 GMT
• Title: Triangulating LLM Progress through Benchmarks, Games, and Cognitive Tests
• Authors: Filippo Momentè, Alessandro Suglia, Mario Giulianelli, Ambra Ferrari, Alexander Koller, Oliver Lemon, David Schlangen, Raquel Fernández, Raffaella Bernardi,
• Abstract summary: We examine three evaluation paradigms: large question-answering benchmarks, interactive games, and cognitive tests.<n>We compile a suite of targeted tests that measure cognitive abilities deemed essential for effective language use.<n>Our analyses reveal that interactive games are superior to standard benchmarks in discriminating models.
• Score: 89.09172401497213
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We examine three evaluation paradigms: large question-answering benchmarks (e.g., MMLU and BBH), interactive games (e.g., Signalling Games or Taboo), and cognitive tests (e.g., for working memory or theory of mind). First, we investigate which of the former two-benchmarks or games-is most effective at discriminating LLMs of varying quality. Then, inspired by human cognitive assessments, we compile a suite of targeted tests that measure cognitive abilities deemed essential for effective language use, and we investigate their correlation with model performance in benchmarks and games. Our analyses reveal that interactive games are superior to standard benchmarks in discriminating models. Causal and logical reasoning correlate with both static and interactive tests, while differences emerge regarding core executive functions and social/emotional skills, which correlate more with games. We advocate the development of new interactive benchmarks and targeted cognitive tasks inspired by assessing human abilities but designed specifically for LLMs.

Related papers

• V-MAGE: A Game Evaluation Framework for Assessing Visual-Centric Capabilities in Multimodal Large Language Models [84.27290155010533]
  V-MAGE is a game-based evaluation framework designed to assess visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs. We use V-MAGE to evaluate leading MLLMs, revealing significant challenges in their visual perception and reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T15:43:01Z)
• Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another [49.22262396351797]
  We develop a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT) The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains. The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:34:54Z)
• Improving LLM Leaderboards with Psychometrical Methodology [0.0]
  The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has necessitated the creation of benchmarks to evaluate their performance. These benchmarks resemble human tests and surveys, as they consist of questions designed to measure emergent properties in the cognitive behavior of these systems. However, unlike the well-defined traits and abilities studied in social sciences, the properties measured by these benchmarks are often vaguer and less rigorously defined.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T21:21:46Z)
• CARL-GT: Evaluating Causal Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [18.975064947089805]
  Causal reasoning capabilities are essential for large language models (LLMs) in a wide range of applications, such as education and healthcare. We provide a benchmark, named by CARL-GT, which evaluates CAusal Reasoning capabilities of large Language models using Graphs and Tabular data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T20:34:32Z)
• clembench-2024: A Challenging, Dynamic, Complementary, Multilingual Benchmark and Underlying Flexible Framework for LLMs as Multi-Action Agents [19.989503513817095]
  Large Language Models can be prompted to "self-play" conversational games that probe certain capabilities. We take one of the proposed frameworks for setting up such game-play environments, and test its usefulness as an evaluation instrument.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T14:43:31Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Toward best research practices in AI Psychology [3.8073142980733]
  Language models have become an essential part of the burgeoning field of AI Psychology. I discuss 14 methodological considerations that can help design more robust, generalizable studies evaluating the cognitive abilities of language-based AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-03T04:28:19Z)
• MAgIC: Investigation of Large Language Model Powered Multi-Agent in Cognition, Adaptability, Rationality and Collaboration [98.18244218156492]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language processing.<n>As their applications expand into multi-agent environments, there arises a need for a comprehensive evaluation framework.<n>This work introduces a novel competition-based benchmark framework to assess LLMs within multi-agent settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T21:46:27Z)
• GameEval: Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Games [93.40433639746331]
  We propose GameEval, a novel approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs) GameEval treats LLMs as game players and assigns them distinct roles with specific goals achieved by launching conversations of various forms. We show that GameEval can effectively differentiate the capabilities of various LLMs, providing a comprehensive assessment of their integrated abilities to solve complex problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-19T14:33:40Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Do LLMs Understand Social Knowledge? Evaluating the Sociability of Large Language Models with SocKET Benchmark [14.922083834969323]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to perform well at a variety of syntactic, discourse, and reasoning tasks. We introduce a new theory-driven benchmark, SocKET, that contains 58 NLP tasks testing social knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T09:21:06Z)
• Evaluating Human-Language Model Interaction [79.33022878034627]
  We develop a new framework, Human-AI Language-based Interaction Evaluation (HALIE), that defines the components of interactive systems. We design five tasks to cover different forms of interaction: social dialogue, question answering, crossword puzzles, summarization, and metaphor generation. We find that better non-interactive performance does not always translate to better human-LM interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T18:59:45Z)
• JECC: Commonsense Reasoning Tasks Derived from Interactive Fictions [75.42526766746515]
  We propose a new commonsense reasoning dataset based on human's Interactive Fiction (IF) gameplay walkthroughs. Our dataset focuses on the assessment of functional commonsense knowledge rules rather than factual knowledge. Experiments show that the introduced dataset is challenging to previous machine reading models as well as the new large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T19:20:53Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.