CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 15Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesArtificial Intelligence Applications

CogBench: a large language model walks into a psychology lab

Open access
Coda-Forno, Julian, Binz, Marcel, Wang, Jane X., Schulz, Eric·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2402.18225arXiv 2402.18225
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the field of artificial intelligence. Yet, evaluating them comprehensively remains challenging. We argue that this is partly due to the predominant focus on performance metrics in most benchmarks. This paper introduces CogBench, a benchmark that includes ten behavioral metrics derived from seven cognitive psychology experiments. This novel approach offers a toolkit for phenotyping LLMs' behavior. We apply CogBench to 35 LLMs, yielding a rich and diverse dataset. We analyze this data using statistical multilevel modeling techniques, accounting for the nested dependencies among fine-tuned versions of specific LLMs. Our study highlights the crucial role of model size and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in improving performance and aligning with human behavior. Interestingly, we find that open-source models are less risk-prone than proprietary models and that fine-tuning on code does not necessarily enhance LLMs' behavior. Finally, we explore the effects of prompt-engineering techniques. We discover that chain-of-thought prompting improves probabilistic reasoning, while take-a-step-back prompting fosters model-based behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.18225

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some experiments may be procedurally generated, which makes them inherently less susceptible to data contamination issues.

    “some experiments may be procedurally generated (instead of consisting of a static dataset), which makes them inherently less susceptible to data contamination issues (Coda-Forno, Binz, Wang, et al., 2024).”

    From Machine Psychology (2023) · cites this paper as Coda-Forno, Binz, Wang, et al., 2024

    Section B.6.2 (page unavailable) says the temporal-discounting task is the only one that is not procedurally generated, supporting the claim that some experiments are generated rather than fixed. The passages found do not say that procedural generation makes experiments less susceptible to data contamination; searches for contamination and related terms did not establish that link. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “Modern LLMs have scaled to remarkable dimensions in both architecture and datasets (Kaplan et al., 2020), revealing a Proceedings of the 41 st International Conference on Machine Learning , Vienna, Austria.”
    Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. Binz, M. and Schulz, E. Using cognitive psychology to understand gpt-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6):e2218523120, 2023.
  2. Binz, M., Alaniz, S., Roskies, A., Aczel, B., Bergstrom, C. T., Allen, C., Schad, D., Wulff, D., West, J. D., Zhang, Q., et al. How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of science? arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03759, 2023. · arXiv
  3. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosse- lut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258, 2021. · arXiv
  4. Brändle, F., Binz, M., and Schulz, E. Exploration beyond bandits. The drive for knowledge: The science of human information seeking, pp. 147-168, 2021.
  5. Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J. D., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 1877-1901, 2020.
  6. Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. Sparks of artificial general intel- ligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712, 2023. · arXiv
  7. Burnell, R., Schellaert, W., Burden, J., Ullman, T. D., Martinez-Plumed, F., Tenenbaum, J. B., Rutar, D., Cheke, L. G., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Mitchell, M., et al. Rethink reporting of evaluation results in ai. Science, 380(6641): 136-138, 2023.
  8. Carpenter, J., Sherman, M. T., Kievit, R. A., Seth, A. K., Lau, H., and Fleming, S. M. Domain-general enhance- ments of metacognitive ability through adaptive training. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(1):51, 2019.
  9. Cavagnaro, D. R., Aranovich, G. J., McClure, S. M., Pitt, M. A., and Myung, J. I. On the functional form of tempo- ral discounting: An optimized adaptive test. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52:233-254, 2016.
  10. Chen, M., Tworek, J., Jun, H., Yuan, Q., de Oliveira Pinto, H. P., Kaplan, J., Edwards, H., Burda, Y., Joseph, N., Brockman, G., Ray, A., Puri, R., Krueger, G., Petrov, M., Khlaaf, H., Sastry, G., Mishkin, P., Chan, B., Gray, S., Ryder, N., Pavlov, M., Power, A., Kaiser, L., Bavar- ian, M., Winter, C., Tillet, P., Such, F. P., Cummings, D., Plappert, M., Chantzis, F., Barnes, E., Herbert-Voss, A., Guss, W. H., Nichol, A., Paino, A., Tezak, N., Tang, J., Babuschkin, I., Balaji, S., Jain, S., Saunders, W., Hesse, C., Carr, A. N., Leike, J., Achiam, J., Misra, V., Morikawa, E., Radford, A., Knight, M., Brundage, M., Murati, M., Mayer, K., Welinder, P., McGrew, B., Amodei, D., McCandlish, S., Sutskever, I., and Zaremba, W. Evaluating large language models trained on code, 2021.
  11. Chen, Y., Liu, T. X., Shan, Y., and Zhong, S. The emergence of economic rationality of gpt. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(51):e2316205120, 2023. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 2316205120. URL https://www.pnas.org/doi/ abs/10.1073/pnas.2316205120. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Christiano, P. F., Leike, J., Brown, T., Martic, M., Legg, S., and Amodei, D. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 30, 2017.
  13. Coda-Forno, J., Witte, K., Jagadish, A. K., Binz, M., Akata, Z., and Schulz, E. Inducing anxiety in large language models increases exploration and bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11111, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Coda-Forno, J., Binz, M., Akata, Z., Botvinick, M., Wang, J., and Schulz, E. Meta-in-context learning in large lan- guage models. Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems, 36, 2024.
  15. Collins, K. M., Wong, C., Feng, J., Wei, M., and Tenenbaum, J. B. Structured, flexible, and robust: benchmarking and improving large language models towards more human- like behavior in out-of-distribution reasoning tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.05718, 2022. · arXiv
  16. Dasgupta, I., Schulz, E., Tenenbaum, J. B., and Gershman, S. J. A theory of learning to infer. Psychological review, 127(3):412, 2020.
  17. Dasgupta, I., Lampinen, A. K., Chan, S. C., Creswell, A., Kumaran, D., McClelland, J. L., and Hill, F. Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07051, 2022. · arXiv
  18. Daw, N. D., Gershman, S. J., Seymour, B., Dayan, P., and Dolan, R. J. Model-based influences on humans' choices and striatal prediction errors. Neuron, 69(6):1204-1215, 2011.
  19. Ershadmanesh, S., Gholamzadeh, A., Desender, K., and Dayan, P. Meta-cognitive efficiency in learned value- based choice. In 2023 Conference on Cognitive Compu- tational Neuroscience, pp. 29-32, 2023. doi: 10.32470/ CCN.2023.1570-0. URL https://hdl.handle. net/21.11116/0000-000D-5BC7-D. · DOI
  20. Google. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403, 2023. · arXiv
  21. Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., and Kosinski, M. Human-like intuitive behavior and reasoning biases emerged in large language models but disappeared in chatgpt. Nature Com- putational Science, 3(10):833-838, 2023.
  22. Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., and Iwasawa, Y. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Ad- vances in neural information processing systems, 35: 22199-22213, 2022.
  23. Lampinen, A. K., Dasgupta, I., Chan, S. C., Matthewson, K., Tessler, M. H., Creswell, A., McClelland, J. L., Wang, J. X., and Hill, F. Can language models learn from ex- planations in context? arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02329, 2022. · arXiv
  24. Lefebvre, G., Lebreton, M., Meyniel, F., Bourgeois-Gironde, S., and Palminteri, S. Behavioural and neural characteriza- tion of optimistic reinforcement learning. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4):0067, 2017.
  25. Lejuez, C. W. et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the balloon analogue risk task (bart). Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 8(2):75-84, 2002. doi: 10.1037//1076-898x.8.2.75. Liu, X., Wang, J., Sun, J., Yuan, X., Dong, G., Di, P., Wang, W., and Wang, D. Prompting frameworks for large lan- guage models: A survey, 2023. · DOI
  26. Massey, C. and Wu, G. Detecting regime shifts: The causes of under-and overreaction. Management Science, 51(6): 932-947, 2005.
  27. McCoy, R. T., Yao, S., Friedman, D., Hardy, M., and Grif- fiths, T. L. Embers of autoregression: Understanding large language models through the problem they are trained to solve. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13638, 2023. · arXiv
  28. Montague, P. R., Dolan, R. J., Friston, K. J., and Dayan, P. Computational psychiatry. Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(1):72-80, 2012.
  29. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  30. Rescorla, R. A. Classical conditioning ii: current research and theory. pp. 64, 1972.
  31. Ruggeri, K., Panin, A., Vdovic, M., Većkalov, B., Abdul- Salaam, N., Achterberg, J., Akil, C., Amatya, J., Amatya, K., Andersen, T. L., et al. The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(10):1386-1397, 2022.
  32. Salewski, L., Alaniz, S., Rio-Torto, I., Schulz, E., and Akata, Z. In-context impersonation reveals large lan- guage models' strengths and biases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14930, 2023. · arXiv
  33. Schaeffer, R., Miranda, B., and Koyejo, S. Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage? arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.15004, 2023. · arXiv
  34. Shekhar, M. and Rahnev, D. Sources of metacognitive inefficiency. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(1):12-23, 2021.
  35. Tamkin, A., Brundage, M., Clark, J., and Ganguli, D. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and soci- etal impact of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.02503, 2021. · arXiv
  36. Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023. · arXiv
  37. Ullman, T. Large language models fail on trivial al- terations to theory-of-mind tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.08399, 2023. · arXiv
  38. Wei, J., Tay, Y., Bommasani, R., Raffel, C., Zoph, B., Borgeaud, S., Yogatama, D., Bosma, M., Zhou, D., Met- zler, D., et al. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682, 2022. · arXiv
  39. Wilson, R. C., Geana, A., White, J. M., Ludvig, E. A., and Cohen, J. D. Humans use directed and random explo- ration to solve the explore-exploit dilemma. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6):2074, 2014.
  40. Yax, N., Anlló, H., and Palminteri, S. Studying and improv- ing reasoning in humans and machines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12485, 2023. · arXiv
  41. Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., Zhang, H., Gonzalez, J. E., and Stoica, I. Judging llm-as-a- judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, 2023b. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coda-Forno, J., Binz, M., Wang, J. X., & Schulz, E.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2402.18225
arXiv
2402.18225
OpenAlex
W4392340595
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, LLM benchmarking, behavioral metrics, cognitive psychology experiments, model size, reinforcement learning from human feedback, open-source vs closed-source models, prompt engineering, chain-of-thought prompting, probabilistic reasoning, model-based reasoning, multilevel modeling

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review