CogGym compares human and AI reasoning across many tasks
CogGym: Towards Large-Scale Comparative Evaluation of Human and Machine Cognition
Artificial Intelligence
Summary
Understanding how machines think like humans is hard because people can do many different kinds of reasoning. The authors created CogGym, a system that lets researchers test many cognitive science experiments on AI models and humans in the same way. They tested 50 language models on hundreds of reasoning tasks and found that newer, bigger models behave more like humans but are still far from matching human consistency. CogGym aims to keep growing to show where AI matches or differs from human thought over time.
What this means in practice
- •For ai system developers: Evaluate how well AI models reproduce human-like reasoning across many cognitive tasks systematically.
- •For human-computer interaction teams: Identify specific cognitive tasks where AI deviates from human responses to improve interaction design.
Authors
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
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.