Dataset Viewer
Auto-converted to Parquet Duplicate
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

Paper for dengzhe-hou/S1CogBench