CheeseBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Rodent Behavioral Neuroscience Paradigms

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10825v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2026 21:37:26 GMT
• Title: CheeseBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Rodent Behavioral Neuroscience Paradigms
• Abstract summary: CheeseBench is a benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on nine classical behavioral neuroscience paradigms.<n>Each task is grounded in peer-reviewed rodent protocols with approximate animal baselines.<n>We evaluate six open-weight LLMs on text-based ASCII renderings and compare against both a random baseline and a graph-based reinforcement learning agent.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We introduce CheeseBench, a benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on nine classical behavioral neuroscience paradigms (Morris water maze, Barnes maze, T-maze, radial arm maze, star maze, operant chamber, shuttle box, conditioned place preference, and delayed non-match to sample), spanning six cognitive dimensions. Each task is grounded in peer-reviewed rodent protocols with approximate animal baselines. The agent receives a unified system prompt with no task-specific instructions and must discover goals purely from ASCII text observations and reward signals, much like a rodent placed into an unfamiliar apparatus. We evaluate six open-weight LLMs (3B to 72B parameters) on text-based ASCII renderings and compare against both a random baseline and a graph-based reinforcement learning agent. Our best model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) reaches 52.6% average success on ASCII input, compared to 32.1% for random agents and 78.9% for approximate rodent baselines. We find that (1) scaling beyond 7B yields diminishing returns, (2) longer context history degrades performance, (3) chain-of-thought prompting hurts rather than helps, and (4) a vision-language architecture provides an advantage at 7B but hurts at 32B. Because the same model's performance ranges from 20% to 57% depending on interface parameters alone, these results characterize the agent-plus-interface system, not the model in isolation. Under this unified zero-shot ASCII protocol, current open-weight LLM agents remain well below approximate rodent reference values, particularly on tasks requiring spatial navigation and within-trial state tracking.

Related papers

• Codebook Agent: Amortized Topology Design for LLM Multi-Agent Systems [67.04448659688579]
  We develop a query-independent 16-entry codebook that ranks the top decoded candidates in a single batched forward pass.<n>With no iterative search and no message passing at test time, Codebook Agent is the most accurate method on all six benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-02T08:10:22Z)
• AgentOmnia: Scaling Agentic Models for Full-Scenario Applications [36.656762500581216]
  Large language model agents have advanced rapidly, yet progress remains fragmented across domains, capabilities, task difficulty, and interaction settings.<n>We frame this as full-scenario agentic scaling and present Agent Omnia, a framework coordinating task-space definition, data synthesis, post-training, evaluation, and improvement across To-Consumer (ToC), To-Business (ToB), and To-Employee (ToE) applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-25T09:58:24Z)
• Efficient Visual Pointing for Embodied AI:Agent-Driven Data Synthesis, Cross-Block Attention, and Iterative Correction [55.11480729304395]
  We describe our PointArena 2026 solution, which achieves 77.2% overall accuracy and ranks second on the benchmark.<n>The ap proach targets three failure modes. First, agent-driven syn thesis builds large semantic and anchor-relative candidate pools.<n>Second, a determinis tic steerable-data pipeline creates a verified 10,000-sample main set, plus reserve samples, using masks, templates, and path verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T06:39:03Z)
• It's Not the Capability: Harness Sensitivity Is Non-Monotone Across LLM Agent Tiers [0.0]
  A prevalent assumption in LLM agent deployment holds that more structured harnesses universally improve reliability.<n>We test this hypothesis through a controlled 432-run experiment crossing six models across four capability tiers.<n>We introduce a six-label failure taxonomy showing that format_violation dominates capable-model failures while wrong_file dominates low-capability failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T09:08:41Z)
• Democratizing AI with Small Language Models: Structured Benchmarking and Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Local Deployment [0.0]
  We evaluate nine open-weight language models between 135M and 3B parameters on a benchmark designed for structured local deployment.<n>A shared parameter-efficient fine-tuning pipeline adapts a subset of models using 4-bit NF4 quantization with DoRA/LoRA-style adapters on an NVIDIA L4-class budget.<n>In base evaluation, Qwen Coder 3B leads at 75.67% strict accuracy, followed by Qwen2.5 1.5B at 67.10%, Qwen3.5 2B at 64.98%, and Granite 3.3 2B at 64.61%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T02:36:09Z)
• ImplicitMemBench: Measuring Unconscious Behavioral Adaptation in Large Language Models [60.14219417402433]
  Existing memory benchmarks for LLM agents evaluate explicit recall of facts, yet overlook implicit memory where experience becomes automated behavior without conscious retrieval.<n>We introduce ImplicitMemBench, the first systematic benchmark evaluating implicit memory through three constructs drawn from standard cognitive-science accounts of non-declarative memory.<n>Our 300-item suite employs a unified Learning/Priming-Interfere-Test protocol with first-attempt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T10:26:32Z)
• How Small Can 6G Reason? Scaling Tiny Language Models for AI-Native Networks [3.099103925863002]
  We study the scaling behavior and deployment efficiency of compact language models for network-level semantic reasoning in AI-native 6G systems.<n>We evaluate models ranging from 135M (SmolLM2-135M) to 7B parameters (Qwen2.5-7B), including mid-scale architectures such as Llama-3.2-1B, Granite-1B, and Qwen2.5-3B.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T18:19:49Z)
• Predictive Coding and Information Bottleneck for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models [0.8552050317027305]
  Hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) remain a critical barrier to high-stakes deployment.<n>We introduce [Model Name], a hybrid detection framework that combines neuroscience-inspired signal design with supervised machine learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T05:00:21Z)
• Benchmarking Small Language Models and Small Reasoning Language Models on System Log Severity Classification [3.192782465393035]
  We argue that severity classification is more informative when treated as a benchmark for probing runtime log comprehension rather than as an end task.<n>We evaluate nine small language models (SLMs) and small reasoning language models (SRLMs) under zero-shot, few-shot, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T18:02:33Z)
• SCISSOR: Mitigating Semantic Bias through Cluster-Aware Siamese Networks for Robust Classification [16.633948320306832]
  Shortcut learning undermines model generalization to out-of-distribution data.<n>We propose SCISSOR (Semantic Cluster Intervention for Suppressing ShORtcut), a network-based debiasing approach.<n>We evaluate SCISSOR on 6 models across 4 benchmarks: Chest-XRay and Not-MNIST in computer vision, and GYAFC and Yelp in NLP tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T14:49:29Z)
• COS(M+O)S: Curiosity and RL-Enhanced MCTS for Exploring Story Space via Language Models [0.0]
  We present COS(M+O)S, a System 2-inspired framework for open-ended plot development.<n>It explores the vast space of possible story expansions to approach the plot quality of a 70B model on short-story tasks.<n>In tests with short-story prompts, 67%-77% of participants favored COS(M+O)S's highest-rated expansions over lower-rated ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-28T17:44:04Z)
• DataComp-LM: In search of the next generation of training sets for language models [200.5293181577585]
  DataComp for Language Models (DCLM) is a testbed for controlled dataset experiments with the goal of improving language models.<n>We provide a standardized corpus of 240T tokens extracted from Common Crawl, effective pretraining recipes based on the OpenLM framework, and a broad suite of 53 downstream evaluations.<n>Participants in the DCLM benchmark can experiment with data curation strategies such as deduplication, filtering, and data mixing at model scales ranging from 412M to 7B parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T17:42:57Z)
• WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild [57.272096543738336]
  We introduce WildBench, an automated evaluation framework designed to benchmark large language models (LLMs) WildBench consists of 1,024 tasks carefully selected from over one million human-chatbot conversation logs. We have developed two metrics, WB-Reward and WB-Score, which are computable using advanced LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T09:15:44Z)
• Tool-Augmented Reward Modeling [58.381678612409]
  We propose a tool-augmented preference modeling approach, named Themis, to address limitations by empowering RMs with access to external environments. Our study delves into the integration of external tools into RMs, enabling them to interact with diverse external sources. In human evaluations, RLHF trained with Themis attains an average win rate of 32% when compared to baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T09:47:40Z)
• INSTRUCTSCORE: Explainable Text Generation Evaluation with Finegrained Feedback [80.57617091714448]
  We present InstructScore, an explainable evaluation metric for text generation. We fine-tune a text evaluation metric based on LLaMA, producing a score for generated text and a human readable diagnostic report.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:27:22Z)

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.