How Far Can LLMs Improve from Experience? Measuring Test-Time Learning Ability in LLMs with Human Comparison
Jiayin Wang, Zhiqiang Guo, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang
摘要
As evaluation designs of large language models may shape our trajectory toward artificial general intelligence, comprehensive and forward-looking assessment is essential. Existing benchmarks primarily assess static knowledge, while intelligence also entails the ability to rapidly learn from experience. To this end, we advocate for the evaluation of Test-time Learning, the capacity to improve performance in experience-based, reasoning-intensive tasks during test time. In this work, we propose semantic games as effective testbeds for evaluating test-time learning, due to their resistance to saturation and inherent demand for strategic reasoning. We introduce an objective evaluation framework that compares model performance under both limited and cumulative experience settings, and contains four forms of experience representation. To provide a comparative baseline, we recruit eight human participants to complete the same task. Results show that LLMs exhibit measurable test-time learning capabilities; however, their improvements are less stable under cumulative experience and progress more slowly than those observed in humans. These findings underscore the potential of LLMs as general-purpose learning machines, while also revealing a substantial intellectual gap between models and humans, irrespective of how well LLMs perform on static benchmarks. Code and data are available 1 . "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime." tions. Claude Test-time Policy from Experience 1. Core Question Structure -Always start with "Is it a man-made object?" -Follow with major category splits like: * Electronic vs. non-electronic * Indoor vs. outdoor use * Portable vs. stationary -Use clear binary choices with "rather than" comparisons to avoid invalid responses 2. Category Hierarchy (in order) A. Man-made vs. Natural B. If man-made: -Electronic/Electrical vs. Non-electronic -Indoor vs. Outdoor use -Major categories: * Electronics/Devices * Furniture * Clothing/Accessories * Tools/Equipment * Sports/Recreation * Kitchen/Household items
问问这篇 Paper
智能体会读完全文。
Lune 把这篇 Paper 索引到了每一个公式,引用它的顶会 Paper 也一样。你提问,回答直接引用原文。
引用它的顶会 Paper1
问问它们各自怎么用它它引用的顶会 Paper9
- WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language AgentsShunyu Yao, Howard Chen, John Yang, Karthik NarasimhanNeurIPS 2022 · 被引用 1,477 次
- Test-Time Training with Self-Supervision for Generalization under Distribution ShiftsYu Sun, Xiaolong Wang, Zhuang Liu, John Miller 等ICML 2020 · 被引用 1,220 次
- WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-InstructZiyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun 等ICLR 2024 · 被引用 945 次
- TTT++: When Does Self-Supervised Test-Time Training Fail or Thrive?Yuejiang Liu, Parth Kothari, Bastien van Delft, Baptiste Bellot-Gurlet 等NeurIPS 2021 · 被引用 469 次
- Test-Time Training with Masked AutoencodersYossi Gandelsman, Yu Sun, Xinlei Chen, Alexei A. EfrosNeurIPS 2022 · 被引用 283 次
相关 Paper
- GameArena: Evaluating LLM Reasoning through Live Computer GamesLanxiang Hu, Qiyu Li, Anze Xie, Nan Jiang 等ICLR 2025
- clembench: Using Game Play to Evaluate Chat-Optimized Language Models as Conversational AgentsKranti Chalamalasetti, Jana Götze, Sherzod Hakimov, Brielen Madureira 等EMNLP 2023 · 被引用 6 次
- EvaLearn: Quantifying the Learning Capability and Efficiency of LLMs via Sequential Problem SolvingShihan Dou, Ming Zhang, Chenhao Huang, Jiayi Chen 等NeurIPS 2025 · 被引用 11 次
- KORGym: A Dynamic Game Platform for LLM Reasoning EvaluationJiajun Shi, Jian Yang, Jiaheng Liu, Xingyuan Bu 等NeurIPS 2025 · 被引用 12 次
- Can Large Language Models Win the International Mathematical Games?Alessio Cocchieri, Luca Ragazzi, Giuseppe Tagliavini, Lorenzo Tordi 等EMNLP 2025
