CogArena is introduced, a procedurally generated 13-paradigm benchmark built around a multimethod framework for determining when cognitive-task scores warrant dimensional labels across five theory-motivated groupings, and theory-aligned prompting produces a small in-battery diagonal tendency, but the present evidence does not establish stable five-dimensional profiles.
Abstract
LLM cognitive scores are increasingly summarized as per-ability profiles whose dimensions should converge across tasks, respond selectively to matched interventions, and generalize beyond the models used to define them. We introduce CogArena, a procedurally generated 13-paradigm benchmark built around a multimethod framework for determining when cognitive-task scores warrant dimensional labels across five theory-motivated groupings. Across 55 open-weight models, nearly all paradigm correlations are positive and a common axis explains about half the variance. The within-grouping advantage is small, scoring-sensitive, and uncertain across model families. In a separately frozen, fully crossed study across 12 models from six families, targeted scaffolds show a small matched-grouping advantage, but no scaffold-specific contrast survives multiplicity correction and selectivity does not improve held-out-family prediction. The frozen confirmation criterion fails. A post-hoc alternate-wording replication produces a smaller positive estimate and again fails. Together, these results support a boundary conclusion. Theory-aligned prompting produces a small in-battery diagonal tendency, but the present evidence does not establish stable five-dimensional profiles. CogArena provides a workflow joining behavioral signatures, covariance, matched interventions, and out-of-family prediction before cognitive labels are attached to model scores.
Small cognitively fine-tuned models show promise as noise ceiling estimators for psychological experiments, though their scope remains bounded by the paradigms seen in training.
Evaluating LLMs in interaction with humans and designing support for selective deference that preserves independent reasoning motivate evaluating LLMs in interaction with humans.
Robin Welsch, Michelle Rausch, Pascal Knierim et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly reported to exhibit human-like neural and cognitive signatures, including concept cells, mental number lines, and cognitive maps. These claims often rely on linear probing and activation steering applied to a single model, yet both methods are highly sensitive to measuremen...
Different capacities for mentalization across LLMs are demonstrated, and cognitive computational modeling is highlighted as a formal method for assessing comparative intelligence across humans and machines.
Aamir Sohail, Xintong Zhong, Arkady Konovalov et al.· 0 citations
The MMLU aggregate weights retrieval capacity and reasoning stability unequally, inadvertently favoring models optimized for retrieval and avoiding models optimized for retrieval.
Statistical reasoning is multidimensional, yet evaluations of large language models (LLMs) typically emphasize response accuracy while overlooking how models construct and communicate statistical explanations. This study demonstrates the value of a multidimensional evaluation by combining response accuracy, response be...