ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing the Relational Abilities of Large Language Models and Large Reasoning Models.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the relational abilities of two state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) and two large reasoning models (LRMs) using a new battery of several thousand syllogistic problems, similar to those used in behavior-analytic tasks for relational abilities. To probe the models' general (as opposed to task- or domain-specific) abilities, the problems involved multiple relations (sameness, difference, comparison, hierarchy, analogy, temporal and deictic), specified between randomly selected nonwords and varied in terms of complexity (number of premises, inclusion of irrelevant premises) and format (valid or invalid conclusion prompted). We also tested transformations of stimulus function. Our results show that the models generally performed well in this new task battery. The models did show some variability across different relations and were to a limited extent affected by task variations. Model performance was, however, robust against the randomization of premise order in a replication study. Our research provides a new framework for testing a core aspect of intellectual (i.e., relational) abilities in artificial systems; we discuss the implications of this and future research directions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.