Ying, Lance, Wu, Jinzhou, Wang, Yingshan Susan, Aarya, Shivam, Buschoff, Luca M. Schulze, Chen, Harry, Collins, Katherine M., de Varda, Andrea, Fu, Shuhao, Houlihan, Sean Dae, Jagadish, Akshay K., Jiang, Guangyuan, Kiegeland, Samuel, Kurumisawa, Tetsu, Liu, Rongzhi, Liu, Ryan, Ma, Ningshan, McGregor, Kathryn, Strittmatter, Younes, Tsvilodub, Polina, Vigly, Jacob Hoover, Wu, Sarah, Xu, Enjie, Yun, Yiling, Allen, Kelsey, Brooke-Wilson, Tyler, Christian, Brian, Fedorenko, Evelina, Frank, Michael C., Franke, Michael, Gao, Tao, Gershman, Samuel J., Hawkins, Robert D., Hu, Jennifer, Jara-Ettinger, Julian, Kleiman-Weiner, Max, Levine, Sydney, Linzen, Tal, Lu, Hongjing, O'Donnell, Timothy, Ong, Desmond C., Piantadosi, Steven T., Saxe, Rebecca, Schulz, Eric, Shu, Tianmin, Sosa, Felix A., Sucholutsky, Ilia, Zhi-Xuan, Tan, Ullman, Tomer, Xu, Fei, Yildirim, Ilker, Zhu, Jian-Qiao, Griffiths, Thomas L., Gerstenberg, Tobias, Smith, Kevin, Tenenbaum, Joshua B.
Abstract
Understanding and modeling human intelligence are parallel goals shared by artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science. As AI systems grow increasingly capable, in what ways do model responses resemble human responses, and where do they systematically diverge? The sheer breadth and diversity of the tasks humans can perform and think about pose a challenge for scalable and rigorous comparison between humans and models. We introduce CogGym, a scalable, unified framework grounded in cognitive science for systematically comparing model and human behavior on matched experimental trials. CogGym uses a semi-automated, human-in-the-loop pipeline to standardize diverse experimental paradigms into a task-agnostic Experiment Markup Language (EML), enabling reproducible and faithful comparison at scale. For initial release, we curate and standardize 258 cognitive experiments from 100 papers that focuses on human commonsense reasoning, and evaluate 50 large language models against human responses. We find a clear scaling trend where larger and more recent AI models better reproduce human judgments. Yet AI models' improvement on such common reasoning tasks is considerably slower than the gains observed on formal-reasoning benchmarks like math and coding, and model--human fit remains well below human splithalf reliability ($R^2 = 0.93$ on text, $0.95$ on image, and $0.92$ on video) with the best models achieving $R^2 = 0.59$ on text, $0.58$ on image, and $0.43$ on video experiments. We intend for CogGym to provide a living evaluation framework that continually incorporates new cognitive science experiments to characterize where model behavior resembles human behavior, where it systematically diverges, and how those patterns change as models and experiments evolve.
Chinese Translation
理解和建模人类智能是人工智能(AI)和认知科学共同追求的目标。随着AI系统能力的不断增强,模型的反应在何种方面与人类反应相似,又在何处系统性地偏离?人类能够执行和思考的任务的广度和多样性对人类与模型之间进行可扩展且严格的比较提出了挑战。我们引入了CogGym,这是一个基于认知科学的可扩展统一框架,用于系统地比较模型和人类在匹配实验试验中的行为。CogGym使用半自动化的人机协作流程,将多样的实验范式标准化为任务无关的实验标记语言(Experiment Markup Language, EML),从而实现可重复和真实的规模比较。在初始发布中,我们整理并标准化了来自100篇论文的258个认知实验,重点关注人类的常识推理,并对50个大型语言模型与人类反应进行了评估。我们发现一个明显的规模趋势,即更大和更新的AI模型更好地再现人类的判断。然而,AI模型在这些常识推理任务上的改进速度远低于在数学和编码等形式推理基准上观察到的进展,且模型与人类的拟合度远低于人类的分半可靠性(文本上的$R^2 = 0.93$,图像上的$0.95$,视频上的$0.92$),最佳模型在文本、图像和视频实验中的$R^2$分别为$0.59$、$0.58$和$0.43$。我们希望CogGym能够提供一个持续的评估框架,不断纳入新的认知科学实验,以表征模型行为与人类行为相似的地方、系统性偏离的地方,以及随着模型和实验的演变这些模式如何变化。