Evaluating Cognitive Age Alignment in Interactive AI Agents

Children increasingly have access to Large Language Models (LLMs), which may expose them to responses that are developmentally inappropriate or require age-sensitive safety, guidance, and boundaries. Existing LLM safety evaluations largely focus on general harmful-content avoidance and do not explicitly target child-facing safety. We introduce KIDBench, a benchmark for evaluating child-facing LLM safety for ages 7-11 using a LLM-as-a-Judge rubric grounded in developmental-psychology. KIDBench contains realistic child queries across ten categories, with single-turn prompts and multi-turn child-actor simulations. We compare no-cues prompts with no child context, implicit-cues prompts that suggest a child speaker, and explicit age instructions. Implicit-cues improve scores by 8.6-46.8% over no-cue, while explicit age provides an additional 9.9-30.4% improvement over implicit-cues. Cross-lingual and cultural evaluations show uneven safety behavior across languages and country contexts. Multi-turn simulations show peak quality drops of up to 0.959 points on the 1-5 scale. We also introduce KIDGuardLlama, a child-safety evaluator, and KIDLlama, a child-safe response model. Code, data, and evaluation resources are available at https://github.com/MichiganNLP/kidbench.

Given the inherently multimodal nature of human experience, vision-language models (VLMs) hold substantial promise for modeling human cognition as it grows and develops with experience. Realizing their potential requires tools for comparing VLMs with human cognitive development across tasks, ages, and populations. We present LEVANTE-bench, a benchmark based on tasks and data from the Learning Variability Network (LEVANTE), which distributes open-source tasks and data measuring children's cognition across languages and cultures. In LEVANTE-bench, we systematically assess VLMs on six tasks, comparing their alignment with children aged 5-12 ($N$ = 1547) across three countries. We compare models at multiple scales, assessing their overall accuracy, their task- and item-level alignment with children, and how well they match children's trial-level error distributions. Alignment was heterogeneous across scales: at the level of tasks and items, more capable models aligned better with humans. However, match to human error distributions varied widely across tasks, and for several tasks, smaller models matched younger children's errors better. In addition, even the best-performing VLMs struggled on matrix reasoning and mental rotation tasks. Thus, current VLM architectures align only partially with the cognitive abilities of children.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.