From Human-Level AI Tales to AI Leveling Human Scales

Comparing AI models to "human level" is often misleading when benchmark scores are incommensurate or human baselines are drawn from a narrow population. To address this, we propose a framework that calibrates items against the 'world population' and report performance on a common, human-anchored scale. Concretely, we build on a set of multi-level scales for different capabilities where each level should represent a probability of success of the whole world population on a logarithmic scale with a base $B$. We calibrate each scale for each capability (reasoning, comprehension, knowledge, volume, etc.) by compiling publicly released human test data spanning education and reasoning benchmarks (PISA, TIMSS, ICAR, UKBioBank, and ReliabilityBench). The base $B$ is estimated by extrapolating between samples with two demographic profiles using LLMs, with the hypothesis that they condense rich information about human populations. We evaluate the quality of different mappings using group slicing and post-stratification. The new techniques allow for the recalibration and standardization of scales relative to the whole-world population.

AI Gamestore: Scalable, Open-Ended Evaluation of Machine General Intelligence with Human Games

Rigorously evaluating machine intelligence against the broad spectrum of human general intelligence has become increasingly important and challenging in this era of rapid technological advance. Conventional AI benchmarks typically assess only narrow capabilities in a limited range of human activity. Most are also static, quickly saturating as developers explicitly or implicitly optimize for them. We propose that a more promising way to evaluate human-like general intelligence in AI systems is through a particularly strong form of general game playing: studying how and how well they play and learn to play \textbf{all conceivable human games}, in comparison to human players with the same level of experience, time, or other resources. We define a "human game" to be a game designed by humans for humans, and argue for the evaluative suitability of this space of all such games people can imagine and enjoy -- the "Multiverse of Human Games". Taking a first step towards this vision, we introduce the AI GameStore, a scalable and open-ended platform that uses LLMs with humans-in-the-loop to synthesize new representative human games, by automatically sourcing and adapting standardized and containerized variants of game environments from popular human digital gaming platforms. As a proof of concept, we generated 100 such games based on the top charts of Apple App Store and Steam, and evaluated seven frontier vision-language models (VLMs) on short episodes of play. The best models achieved less than 10\% of the human average score on the majority of the games, and especially struggled with games that challenge world-model learning, memory and planning. We conclude with a set of next steps for building out the AI GameStore as a practical way to measure and drive progress toward human-like general intelligence in machines.

Confident Rankings with Fewer Items: Adaptive LLM Evaluation with Continuous Scores

Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) has proven effective for efficient LLM evaluation on multiple-choice benchmarks, but modern LLM evaluation increasingly relies on generation tasks where outputs are scored continuously rather than marked correct/incorrect. We present a principled extension of IRT-based adaptive testing to continuous bounded scores (ROUGE, BLEU, LLM-as-a-Judge) by replacing the Bernoulli response distribution with a heteroskedastic normal distribution. Building on this, we introduce an uncertainty aware ranker with adaptive stopping criteria that achieves reliable model ranking while testing as few items and as cheaply as possible. We validate our method on five benchmarks spanning n-gram-based, embedding-based, and LLM-as-judge metrics. Our method uses 2% of the items while improving ranking correlation by 0.12 τ over random sampling, with 95% accuracy on confident predictions.

11Plus-Bench: Demystifying Multimodal LLM Spatial Reasoning with Cognitive-Inspired Analysis

For human cognitive process, spatial reasoning and perception are closely entangled, yet the nature of this interplay remains underexplored in the evaluation of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). While recent MLLM advancements show impressive performance on reasoning, their capacity for human-like spatial cognition remains an open question. In this work, we introduce a systematic evaluation framework to assess the spatial reasoning abilities of state-of-the-art MLLMs relative to human performance. Central to our work is 11Plus-Bench, a high-quality benchmark derived from realistic standardized spatial aptitude tests. 11Plus-Bench also features fine-grained expert annotations of both perceptual complexity and reasoning process, enabling detailed instance-level analysis of model behavior. Through extensive experiments across 14 MLLMs and human evaluation, we find that current MLLMs exhibit early signs of spatial cognition. Despite a large performance gap compared to humans, MLLMs' cognitive profiles resemble those of humans in that cognitive effort correlates strongly with reasoning-related complexity. However, instance-level performance in MLLMs remains largely random, whereas human correctness is highly predictable and shaped by abstract pattern complexity. These findings highlight both emerging capabilities and limitations in current MLLMs' spatial reasoning capabilities and provide actionable insights for advancing model design.

Measuring Data Science Automation: A Survey of Evaluation Tools for AI Assistants and Agents

Data science aims to extract insights from data to support decision-making processes. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants for data science, by suggesting ideas, techniques and small code snippets, or for the interpretation of results and reporting. Proper automation of some data-science activities is now promised by the rise of LLM agents, i.e., AI systems powered by an LLM equipped with additional affordances--such as code execution and knowledge bases--that can perform self-directed actions and interact with digital environments. In this paper, we survey the evaluation of LLM assistants and agents for data science. We find (1) a dominant focus on a small subset of goal-oriented activities, largely ignoring data management and exploratory activities; (2) a concentration on pure assistance or fully autonomous agents, without considering intermediate levels of human-AI collaboration; and (3) an emphasis on human substitution, therefore neglecting the possibility of higher levels of automation thanks to task transformation.

Relative Drawing Identification Complexity is Invariant to Modality in Vision-Language Models

Large language models have become multimodal, and many of them are said to integrate their modalities using common representations. If this were true, a drawing of a car as an image, for instance, should map to the similar area in the latent space as a textual description of the strokes that conform the drawing. To explore this in a black-box access regime to these models, we propose the use of machine teaching, a theory that studies the minimal set of examples a teacher needs to choose so that the learner captures the concept. In this paper we evaluate the complexity of teaching visual-language models a subset of objects in the Quick, Draw! dataset using two presentations: raw images as bitmaps and trace coordinates in TikZ format. The results indicate that image-based representations generally require fewer segments and achieve higher accuracy than coordinate-based representations. But, surprisingly, the teaching size usually ranks concepts similarly across both modalities, even when controlling for (a human proxy of) concept priors, suggesting that the simplicity of concepts may be an inherent property that transcends modality representations.

Cognitive Science-Inspired Evaluation of Core Capabilities for Object Understanding in AI

One of the core components of our world models is 'intuitive physics' - an understanding of objects, space, and causality. This capability enables us to predict events, plan action and navigate environments, all of which rely on a composite sense of objecthood. Despite its importance, there is no single, unified account of objecthood, though multiple theoretical frameworks provide insights. In the first part of this paper, we present a comprehensive overview of the main theoretical frameworks in objecthood research - Gestalt psychology, enactive cognition, and developmental psychology - and identify the core capabilities each framework attributes to object understanding, as well as what functional roles they play in shaping world models in biological agents. Given the foundational role of objecthood in world modelling, understanding objecthood is also essential in AI. In the second part of the paper, we evaluate how current AI paradigms approach and test objecthood capabilities compared to those in cognitive science. We define an AI paradigm as a combination of how objecthood is conceptualised, the methods used for studying objecthood, the data utilised, and the evaluation techniques. We find that, whilst benchmarks can detect that AI systems model isolated aspects of objecthood, the benchmarks cannot detect when AI systems lack functional integration across these capabilities, not solving the objecthood challenge fully. Finally, we explore novel evaluation approaches that align with the integrated vision of objecthood outlined in this paper. These methods are promising candidates for advancing from isolated object capabilities toward general-purpose AI with genuine object understanding in real-world contexts.

General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead.

Paradigms of AI Evaluation: Mapping Goals, Methodologies and Culture

Research in AI evaluation has grown increasingly complex and multidisciplinary, attracting researchers with diverse backgrounds and objectives. As a result, divergent evaluation paradigms have emerged, often developing in isolation, adopting conflicting terminologies, and overlooking each other's contributions. This fragmentation has led to insular research trajectories and communication barriers both among different paradigms and with the general public, contributing to unmet expectations for deployed AI systems. To help bridge this insularity, in this paper we survey recent work in the AI evaluation landscape and identify six main paradigms. We characterise major recent contributions within each paradigm across key dimensions related to their goals, methodologies and research cultures. By clarifying the unique combination of questions and approaches associated with each paradigm, we aim to increase awareness of the breadth of current evaluation approaches and foster cross-pollination between different paradigms. We also identify potential gaps in the field to inspire future research directions.

PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability

Despite possessing impressive skills, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably, demonstrating inconsistent success in even basic common sense reasoning tasks. This unpredictability poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment, as identifying and operating within a reliable "safe zone" is essential for mitigating risks. To address this, we present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework designed to evaluate the ability of score predictors (referred to as assessors) to anticipate LLM errors on specific task instances (i.e., prompts) from existing datasets. PredictaBoard evaluates pairs of LLMs and assessors by considering the rejection rate at different tolerance errors. As such, PredictaBoard stimulates research into developing better assessors and making LLMs more predictable, not only with a higher average performance. We conduct illustrative experiments using baseline assessors and state-of-the-art LLMs. PredictaBoard highlights the critical need to evaluate predictability alongside performance, paving the way for safer AI systems where errors are not only minimised but also anticipated and effectively mitigated. Code for our benchmark can be found at https://github.com/Kinds-of-Intelligence-CFI/PredictaBoard