Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) combine the linguistic strengths of LLMs with the ability to process multimodal data, enbaling them to address a broader range of visual tasks. Because MLLMs aim at more general, human-like competence than language-only models, we take inspiration from the Wechsler Intelligence Scales - an established battery for evaluating children by decomposing intelligence into interpretable, testable abilities. We introduce KidGym, a comprehensive 2D grid-based benchmark for assessing five essential capabilities of MLLMs: Execution, Perception Reasoning, Learning, Memory and Planning. The benchmark comprises 12 unique tasks, each targeting at least one core capability, specifically designed to guage MLLMs' adaptability and developmental potential, mirroring the stages of children's cognitive growth. Additionally, our tasks encompass diverse scenarios and objects with randomly generated layouts, ensuring a more accurate and robust evluation of MLLM capabilities. KidGym is designed to be fully user-customizable and extensible, allowing researchers to create new evaluation scenarios and adjust difficuly levels to accommodate the rapidly growing MLLM community. Through the evaluation of state-of-the-art MLLMs using KidGym, we identified significant insights into model capabilities and revealed several limitations of current models. We release our benchmark at: https://bobo-ye.github.io/KidGym/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Previews of 12 tasks in KidGym . The circular chart in the upper-right corner of each subfigure represents the cognitive abilities required by the task: E for Execution , M for Memory , L for Learning , P for Planning , and PR for Perception Reasoning .
Benchmarks
Target
Difficulty Level
User Extensible
Capabilities
Dynamic/Static
Crafter
RL
✗
✗
/
Dynamic
MiniGrid
RL
✓
✓
/
Dynamic
LogicGame
LLM
✓
✗
Learning Planning Execution
Static
EgoPlan
MLLM
✗
✗
Planning
Dynamic
MileBench
MLLM
✗
✗
Memory
Static
Countgd
MLLM
✗
✗
Counting
Static
Table 1: Comparison of KidGym with existing benchmarks across target paradigm, difficulty-level support, user extensibility, evaluated capabilities, and dynamic vs. static settings.
Figure 2: A KidGym task frame comprises a scene map, a backpack, and a hint bar. We provide varied agent skins, backgrounds, and scene-specific items; backpack slots and in-scene items are letter/number-labeled for identification. Resolution and grid layout are specified in Appendix B.1 .
Methods
L
CL
SE
SO
MA
FI
PU
PL
CO
DMA
MMA
MDE
MFI
Closed-Source Models (API)
o3
1
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.87
0.83
0.26
1.00
0.30
0.90
0.44
1.00
0.81
2
0.98
1.00
0.95
0.42
0.52
0.11
0.98
0.26
0.47
0.18
1.00
0.50
3
0.92
1.00
0.97
0.27
0.30
0.06
0.71
0.13
0.17
0.05
1.00
0.37
GPT-5
1
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.74
0.30
1.00
0.36
0.95
0.62
1.00
0.77
2
0.96
1.00
0.99
0.43
0.60
0.06
1.00
0.18
0.47
0.10
1.00
0.61
Table 2: Zero-shot performance comparison of MLLMs across 12 KidGym tasks. “L” denotes the task level. Performance is measured by the success rate over 100 rounds under the ground-truth optimal solution , rounded to two decimal places.
Figure 3: Five-dimensional capability radar chart. The chart on the left shows the capability scores of the closed-source models, while the chart on the right shows those of the open-source models.
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
32×32
64×64
96×96
o3
0.27
0.30
0.59
GPT-4o
0.00
0.00
0.00
Claude-3.7-Sonnet
0.14
0.54
0.79
DeepSeekVL-2
0.12
0.12
0.17
QwenVL-2.5(7B)
0.00
0.00
0.00
QwenVL-2.5(72B)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Appendix
Table 3: Resolution Experiment on Counting (CO) Task
CL
SE
SO
MA
FI
PU
L1
0.98 (39/40)
1.00 (38/38)
1.00 (45/45)
1.00 (44/44)
1.00 (41/41)
1.00 (39/39)
L2
0.95 (37/39)
1.00 (41/41)
0.97 (36/37)
0.98 (39/40)
1.00 (38/38)
1.00 (43/43)
L3
0.93 (40/43)
1.00 (43/43)
0.95 (38/40)
0.97 (37/38)
1.00 (43/43)
1.00 (40/40)
Appendix
Table 4: Human performance results on tasks CL, SE, SO, MA, FI, PU.
PL
CO
DMA
MMA
MDE
MFI
L1
1.00 (43/43)
1.00 (37/37)
1.00(41/41)
0.97 (37/38)
1.00 (39/39)
1.00 (41/41)
L2
1.00 (38/38)
1.00 (44/44)
1.00(40/40)
0.95 (37/39)
1.00 (41/41)
1.00 (43/43)
L3
0.95 (39/41)
1.00 (41/41)
1.00(41/41)
0.92 (42/45)
1.00 (42/42)
1.00 (38/38)
Appendix
Table 5: Human performance results on tasks PL, CO, DMA, MMA, MDE, MFI.
Execution
Memory
Learning
Planning
Perception Reasoning
Closed-Source Models (API)
o3
95
67
80
30
43
GPT-5
95
67
98
30
46
GPT-4o
23
49
43
7
21
Gemini-2.5-pro
100
70
79
31
48
Gemini-2.5-flash
63
50
59
15
31
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of MLLM’s capability scores.
Methods
L
CL
SE
SO
MA
FI
PU
PL
CO
DMA
MMA
MDE
MFI
Closed-Source Models (API)
o3
1
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.95
0.81
0.24
1.00
0.25
0.92
0.47
0.99
0.81
2
0.98
1.00
0.97
0.70
0.63
0.12
0.98
0.25
0.51
0.50
1.00
0.52
3
0.92
1.00
0.89
0.73
0.31
0.03
0.81
0.12
0.20
0.71
1.00
0.35
GPT-4o
1
0.95
1.00
0.83
0.80
0.58
0.25
0.95
0.05
0.68
0.16
0.97
0.64
2
0.96
0.92
0.59
0.31
0.37
0.02
0.38
0.03
0.10
0.01
1.00
0.27
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of MLLM performances across 12 KidGym tasks in CoT.
Methods
L
CL
SE
SO
MA
FI
PU
PL
CO
DMA
MMA
MDE
MFI
Closed-Source Models (API)
o3
1
1.00
0.96
0.83
0.89
0.70
0.25
1.00
0.41
0.96
0.66
1.00
0.73
2
0.98
1.00
0.88
0.77
0.55
0.06
0.99
0.16
0.59
0.63
1.00
0.56
3
0.99
0.99
0.74
0.79
0.27
0.03
0.86
0.15
0.18
0.54
0.99
0.26
GPT-4o
1
0.32
0.80
0.46
0.38
0.32
0.21
0.62
0.00
0.30
0.08
0.54
0.36
2
0.29
0.47
0.18
0.22
0.15
0.08
0.13
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.88
0.09
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of MLLM performances across 12 KidGym tasks in ICL.
Figure 4: An example of task Classification (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Place strawberry in red basket and orange in yellow basket respectively. ”.
Figure 5: An example of task Counting (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Collect 3 pizzas. ”.
Figure 6: An example of task Selection (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Remember the toy car in the first image and then select it from the scene. ”.
Figure 7: An example of task Memory Decode (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Remember and select the item corresponding to the snail in the scene based on the relationship. ”.
Figure 8: An example of task Puzzle (Level1). In this example, the goal is:“ Complete the block puzzle based on the target graphic. ”.
Figure 9: An example of task Filling (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Complete the animal puzzle based on the target graphic. ”.
Figure 10: An example of task Memory Filling (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Remember and complete the animal puzzle based on the target graphic. .”.
Figure 11: An example of task Maze (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Use the orange key to open the orange door and then obtain the diamond. ”.
Figure 12: An example of task Decode Maze (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Use the yellow key to unlock the red door, then obtain the diamond. ”.
Figure 13: An example of task Memory Maze (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Use the blue key to unlock the blue door, then obtain the diamond hidden in the treasure chest using your memory. ”.
Figure 14: An example of task Sorting (Level1). In this example, the rule is: “ The lighter the animal is, the faster it is. ” and the goal is: “ Rank the animal in the backpack from fast to slow by speed in position I, II ”.
Figure 15: An example of task Placement (Level1). In this example, the goal is: “ Place the chick in the opposite direction to the west of the dog. ”.
Figure 16: “ Example image for Classification Task ”
Figure 17: “ Example image for Counting Task ”
Figure 18: “ Example image for Selection Task ”
Figure 19: “ Example image for Memory Decode Task ”
Figure 20: “ Example image for Puzzle Task ”
Figure 21: “ Example image for Filling Task ”
Figure 22: “ Example image for Memory Filling Task ”
As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.
Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) exhibit shortfalls when interpreting images and, by some measures, have poorer spatial cognition than young children or animals. Despite this, they attain high scores on many popular visual benchmarks, with headroom rapidly eroded by model progress. This creates a need for difficult benchmarks that remain relevant for longer. We introduce ZeroBench - a lightweight visual reasoning benchmark curated using adversarial filtering to be "impossible" for frontier LMMs at its original release, with initial SotA scores of 0% pass@1 and pass^5. We track progress on ZeroBench over the subsequent year, observing SotA reaching 6% pass^5 and 19% pass@5, indicating the potential longevity of the benchmark. We evaluate 46 LMMs on ZeroBench, compare performance to a human baseline, analyse strengths and weaknesses, chart a year of progress in visual capabilities, and publicly release ZeroBench at https://zerobench.github.io.
Jonathan Roberts, Mohammad Reza Taesiri, Ansh Sharma +31
While agentic AI and its core multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable promise in language and visual reasoning across domains ranging from daily life to advanced scientific research, a profound gap remains between artificial and human intelligence. Despite the integration of powerful tools and advanced MLLMs, state-of-the-art AI agents frequently fail at foundational, seemingly simple tasks that a child can resolve with ease. Inspired by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), we introduce ChildAgentEval, the first psychometrically grounded interactive benchmark for evaluating cognitive age alignment in MLLM-based agents. ChildAgentEval systematically compares the reasoning performance of various MLLM-based interactive agents against age-specific human developmental stages, exposing where current agentic AI systems can and cannot simulate age-specific cognitive behavior.
Yifan Shen, Jiawen Zhang, Jian Xu +4
1PediaMed AI · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · 4Peking University +2