Mozhgan Saeidi

Saeid Naeini, Raeid Saqur, Mozhgan Saeidi et al. · utoronto

The quest for human imitative AI has been an enduring topic in AI research since its inception. The technical evolution and emerging capabilities of the latest cohort of large language models (LLMs) have reinvigorated the subject beyond academia to the cultural zeitgeist. While recent NLP evaluation benchmark tasks test some aspects of human-imitative behaviour (e.g., BIG-bench's 'human-like behavior' tasks), few, if not none, examine creative problem solving abilities. Creative problem solving in humans is a well-studied topic in cognitive neuroscience with standardized tests that predominantly use the ability to associate (heterogeneous) connections among clue words as a metric for creativity. Exposure to misleading stimuli - distractors dubbed red herrings - impede human performance in such tasks via the fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm. In cognitive neuroscience studies, such fixations are experimentally induced by pre-exposing participants to orthographically similar incorrect words to subsequent word-fragments or clues. The popular British quiz show Only Connect's Connecting Wall segment essentially mimics Mednick's Remote Associates Test (RAT) formulation with built-in, deliberate red herrings, which makes it an ideal proxy dataset to explore and study fixation effect and Einstellung paradigm from cognitive neuroscience in LLMs. In this paper we present the novel Only Connect Wall (OCW) dataset and report results from our evaluation of selected pre-trained language models and LLMs on creative problem solving tasks like grouping clue words by heterogeneous connections, and identifying correct open knowledge domain connections in respective groups. We synthetically generate two additional datasets: OCW-Randomized, OCW-WordNet to further analyze our red-herrings hypothesis in language models. The code and link to the dataset are available at https://github.com/TaatiTeam/OCW.

Andrew Melnik, Robin Schiewer, Moritz Lange et al.

Physical reasoning is a crucial aspect in the development of general AI systems, given that human learning starts with interacting with the physical world before progressing to more complex concepts. Although researchers have studied and assessed the physical reasoning of AI approaches through various specific benchmarks, there is no comprehensive approach to evaluating and measuring progress. Therefore, we aim to offer an overview of existing benchmarks and their solution approaches and propose a unified perspective for measuring the physical reasoning capacity of AI systems. We select benchmarks that are designed to test algorithmic performance in physical reasoning tasks. While each of the selected benchmarks poses a unique challenge, their ensemble provides a comprehensive proving ground for an AI generalist agent with a measurable skill level for various physical reasoning concepts. This gives an advantage to such an ensemble of benchmarks over other holistic benchmarks that aim to simulate the real world by intertwining its complexity and many concepts. We group the presented set of physical reasoning benchmarks into subcategories so that more narrow generalist AI agents can be tested first on these groups.