Domain stringclasses 10
values | Task mode stringlengths 4 24 | Primary target stringlengths 9 18 | Better direction stringclasses 2
values | Uniform float64 0.35 75 | Laya stringlengths 2 5 | Intern float64 0 82.5 | Llama float64 0 81.8 | Minitaur float64 0 86.7 | Qwen float64 0 90 | Jev stringlengths 2 5 | Opus stringclasses 7
values | Sonnet stringclasses 7
values | Haiku stringlengths 3 6 | Reference float64 0 100 | Reference mark stringclasses 5
values | Reference type stringclasses 4
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Evidence | Bayesian urn | Posterior MAE | lower | 0.349 | 0.291 | 0.235 | 0.24 | 0.294 | 0.246 | 0.068 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0 | null | optimal |
Evidence | Multiple-cue judgment | Human NLL | lower | 2.197 | 2.342 | 1.57 | 2.687 | 1.984 | 3.012 | +∞ | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 2.029 | null | human fit |
Evidence | Multi-attribute choice | Human NLL | lower | 0.693 | 0.730 | 0.546 | 0.786 | 0.722 | 0.613 | 0.329 | n.a. | n.a. | 0.206s | 0.192 | † | human fit |
Evidence | Probability coherence | Human MAE (pp) | lower | 32.13 | 32.98 | 18.95 | 28.57 | 19.04 | 21.87 | 17.66 | canc. | canc. | part. | 16.54 | ¶ | human |
Category | SHJ categories | Accuracy (%) | higher | 50 | 50.0 | 65 | 52.9 | 54.5 | 71.3 | 87.4 | n.e. | n.e. | 91.2 | 93.8 | † | human fit |
Category | Medin categories | Accuracy (%) | higher | 50 | 49.6 | 72.3 | 53.5 | 55.9 | 53.8 | 86.8 | n.e. | n.e. | 97.4 | 96.6 | † | human fit |
Category | Weather prediction | Accuracy (%) | higher | 50 | 54.5 | 73 | 47.5 | 53.8 | 50.5 | 80.8 | n.e. | n.e. | 80.2 | 78.2 | † | human fit |
History | RLWM | Accuracy (%) | higher | 33.3 | 34.9 | 77.8 | 41.7 | 49 | 59.3 | 89.5 | n.e. | n.e. | 89.4 | 89.3 | § | human fit |
History | Recent probes | Accuracy (%) | higher | 50 | 49.7 | 82.1 | 55.6 | 49.5 | 53.5 | 99.0 | n.e. | n.e. | 100.0 | 100 | † | human fit |
Adaptation | WCST, prediction | Human NLL | lower | 1.386 | 1.462 | 1.378 | 1.431 | 1.344 | 1.968 | 1.543 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 0.84 | null | human fit |
Adaptation | WCST, autonomous | Accuracy (%) | higher | 25 | 25.5 | 27.9 | 31.4 | 28.2 | 25.2 | 28.5 | n.f. | n.f. | n.f. | 48.9 | null | human fit |
Adaptation | Restless bandit | Better arm (%) | higher | 50 | 55.4 | 65.6 | 57.1 | 49 | 50.5 | 63.9 | part. | 91.1 | part. | 68.8 | ∗ | algorithm |
Adaptation | Instrumental learning | Better arm (%) | higher | 75 | 73.9 | 81.4 | 79.2 | 86.7 | 80 | 86.7 | n.e. | n.e. | part. | 94.9 | ¶ | algorithm |
Exploration | Horizon, prediction | Human NLL | lower | 0.693 | 0.702 | 0.518 | 0.503 | 0.409 | 0.661 | 0.414 | n.a. | n.a. | 0.390s | 0.4 | null | human fit |
Exploration | Horizon, autonomous | Optimal (%) | higher | 50 | 54.8 | 78.7 | 66.4 | 71.7 | 63.3 | 82.9 | n.f. | n.f. | n.f. | 74.6 | null | human fit |
Exploration | Stationary bandits | Optimal arm (%) | higher | 12.5 | 17.6 | 37.4 | 13.5 | 9.8 | 28.9 | 47.0 | n.e. | n.e. | n.e. | 68.1 | † | algorithm |
Information | Hybrid sampling | Human NLL | lower | 1.386 | 1.390 | 1.116 | 1.515 | 1.039 | 2.648 | +∞ | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 0.264 | ‡ | human fit |
Information | Mouselab, prediction | Human NLL | lower | 1.634 | 1.717 | 2.109 | 2.743 | 2.125 | 2.464 | 1.458 | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1.367 | ‡ | human fit |
Information | Mouselab, autonomous | Expected return | higher | 7.01 | 0.00 | 0 | 3.77 | 0 | 17.4 | 8.21 | n.e. | n.e. | n.e. | 11.77 | ∗ | human fit |
Preference | BART | Mean reward | higher | 0.84 | 0.00 | 0.74 | 0.28 | 0 | 0 | 1.76 | n.e. | n.e. | 6.27 | 10.49 | ¶ | algorithm |
Preference | Temporal discounting | Delayed reward (%) | null | 50 | 0.0 | 16.7 | 0 | 80 | 90 | 50.0 | n.e. | n.e. | 77.8 | 41.5 | ¶ | human |
Planning | Two-step | Mean reward | higher | 0.5 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.5 | 0.51 | 0.52 | 0.55 | n.e. | n.e. | 0.55 | 0.52 | ¶ | human fit |
Social | False-belief QA | Accuracy (%) | higher | 50 | 39.5 | 82.5 | 81.8 | 65 | 82.8 | 71.5 | n.e. | n.e. | 82.6 | 100 | null | optimal |
Social | Politeness | Aggregate NLL | lower | 1.014 | 1.192 | 0.799 | 1.584 | 1.008 | 1 | +∞ | n.a. | n.a. | +∞s | 0.587 | ¶ | human |
Social | Pragmatic interpretation | Aggregate NLL | lower | 1.282 | 1.592 | 0.814 | 1.851 | 1.049 | 1.24 | +∞ | n.a. | n.a. | +∞s | 0.416 | ¶ | human |
Social | Nonliteral number | MAE to human mean | lower | 34.77 | 30.86 | 16.87 | 25.1 | 28.53 | 29.75 | 20.37 | 15.34 | 20.81 | 22.52 | 4.98 | ¶ | human |
Metacognition | Self-assessment | Human NLL | lower | 2.039 | +∞ | 2.029 | 2.523 | 1.885 | 2.262 | +∞ | n.a. | n.a. | n.a. | 1.619 | ¶ | human fit |
S1CogBench aggregate results
S1CogBench asks what System One decision models can and cannot do on established cognitive experiments. These models, such as Jev and Laya, return one fast decision over the legal options and leave no text to inspect. The benchmark evaluates five open models and Jev on 24 cognitive tasks in 27 modes, keeps each task's conditions and scoring apart from disclosed adaptations, and scores human-response prediction, autonomous execution and event probabilities separately.
This dataset holds the aggregate results of the paper. The tasks, runners and scorers are in the GitHub repository.
Paper · Project website · GitHub · Evaluate your model
Files
| File | Contents |
|---|---|
aggregate/table2.csv |
Table 3 of the paper. One row per task mode and primary target (27 rows), one column per model, with the uniform and task-specific references. Cells are printed values, so +∞, n.a. and footnote marks stay as text. |
aggregate/table2.json |
The same table with the result row behind each cell. |
aggregate/results.csv, aggregate/results.json |
All 1,961 aggregate rows, with task, model, protocol, mode, metric, target, unit, n, aggregation and notes. |
aggregate/reference_results.json, aggregate/baseline_provenance.json |
Reference values and how each was fitted or computed. |
aggregate/tasks.json |
The catalogue of 31 tasks: the 24 evaluated tasks and 7 deferred ones, with sources, protocols and adaptations. |
aggregate/metric_status.json |
For each task, model and shared metric, whether the metric applies and why. |
aggregate/rlwm_curves.csv |
RLWM learning curves by set size for humans, fitted references and the open models. |
aggregate/bandit_condition_scores.csv |
Stationary bandit reward and pseudo-regret by condition, for the five open models and a Gaussian Thompson sampling reference. |
aggregate/api_time_cost_per_target.csv |
Latency, cost and output tokens of Jev and Claude per target. |
aggregate/minitaur_nonliteral_reparsed.csv |
Minitaur's nonliteral-number reports after the parser fix. |
aggregate/result_schema.json, aggregate/grouping_guide.md |
The row schema and how to compare results without mixing contexts. |
aggregate/data_manifest.json, aggregate/cpu_validation_24_status.json |
Provenance of the files and the CPU validation of all 27 modes. |
Load the tables
from datasets import load_dataset
table = load_dataset("dengzhe-hou/S1CogBench", "main_table", split="train")
rows = load_dataset("dengzhe-hou/S1CogBench", "results", split="train")
There is no pooled cognitive score and no overall ranking. Each target has its own unit and direction, so compare models within a row, and match task, protocol, mode, metric, target, unit and aggregation as the grouping guide describes.
Evaluate your own model
The task inputs are not in this dataset. Several sources keep their own terms, and the Psych-101 test transcripts are gated by their authors, so the repository fetches every input from its original source at a pinned revision. An adapter is one Python file, and the repository has templates for Hugging Face language models, decision APIs and text-generation APIs.
git clone https://github.com/dengzhe-hou/S1CogBench.git
cd S1CogBench
python -m pip install -r requirements.txt
python scripts/fetch_public_sources.py all
python -m s1cogbench eval --smoke --output runs/smoke
python -m s1cogbench eval --adapter my_agent.py --device cuda:0 --model-label my-model --tasks all --output runs/my-model
The output rows use the same schema as aggregate/results.csv. See the quickstart and models and adapters.
License
The aggregate results are released under CC BY 4.0. Reference values computed from third-party human data keep the terms of their original sources, which aggregate/tasks.json lists for each task. The S1CogBench code on GitHub is MIT licensed.
Citation
@misc{hou2026s1cogbench,
title = {{S1CogBench}: What System One Decision Models Can and Cannot Do on Cognitive Experiments},
author = {Hou, Dengzhe and Yamada, Kazunori D},
year = {2026},
eprint = {2611.00911},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
primaryClass = {cs.CL},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.00911}
}
- Downloads last month
- 47