ArchitectureIQ: On the Measure of Training Intuition

Architectural spatial intelligence, the ability to recognize and infer architectural space, is fundamental to tasks such as robot navigation, embodied interaction, and 3D scene understanding and generation. Although extensive research has evaluated the basic spatial skills of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as relative orientation, distance comparison, and object counting, these tasks cover only the most elementary levels of spatial cognition and largely overlook higher-level cognition of architectural space, including layout understanding, circulation patterns, and functional zoning. In this work, we present ArchSIBench, a Benchmark for Architectural Spatial Intelligence based on the perspectives from architecture, cognitive science, and psychology. ArchSIBench covers five core dimensions: perception, reasoning, navigation, transformation, and configuration, comprising 17 fine-grained subtasks. Through careful manual annotation by experts with architectural backgrounds, we construct 3,000 question-answer pairs to enable comprehensive evaluation of architectural spatial intelligence. Based on ArchSIBench, we evaluate various VLMs and find that the architectural spatial intelligence of most models shows significant differences from human baselines; additionally, models exhibit substantial variability across capability dimensions. Some state-of-the-art models can approach the level of human evaluators without architectural training. However, a clear gap remains compared to human evaluators with architectural training, particularly in spatial transformation and configuration reasoning. We believe that ArchSIBench will provide important insights and systematic resources for measuring and advancing the architectural spatial intelligence of VLMs. The dataset and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ArchSIBench/ArchSIBench.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as assistants across the software development lifecycle, yet their ability to reason about software architecture remains largely unmeasured. Architectural decision-making depends on quality attribute trade-offs, design patterns, and system-level constraints, none of which are exercised by benchmarks that target syntactic or algorithmic tasks. We introduce SAKE (Software Architectural Knowledge Evaluation), a standardized and reproducible benchmark for assessing software architectural knowledge in LLMs. SAKE comprises 2154 expert-curated multiple-choice questions, each with four options, stratified across eight architectural categories and four context-length levels. We evaluate 11 proprietary and open-weight models in zero-shot and five-shot settings. Overall accuracy is high, but performance varies markedly across categories, revealing competency gaps in areas central to professional practice. SAKE, its evaluation scripts, and all results are released as open source to give the community a baseline for tracking architectural reasoning in LLMs.

A common assumption in language model development is that cognitive abilities are organized around a general, domain-free intelligence factor, like fluid intelligence in humans. This assumption is rarely tested directly, and prior attempts have done so only at a much smaller scale. We take a latent variable approach to intelligence in language models, similar to how psychometricians study psychological constructs. Performance in every specific problem set is influenced by a domain-specific and a domain-agnostic latent factor. Using factor analysis as a dimension-reduction technique, we analyzed 13,251 published evaluation scores covering 1,618 language models across 456 different text-only benchmarks. Due to the super-sparse nature of the dataset, we triangulate our analysis across different data densifiers and imputation methods. A robust pattern across different modes of bias is that 1. A general intelligence factor accounts for 70.8% of variance in model performance at our most generous estimate, and far less than that in most of our solutions, 2. Content-similar benchmarks do not necessarily cluster together, and 3. The $g$ factor is not dominated by any common theme, and there is a lack of evidence that it is well-proxied by standard "intelligence" benchmarks. Our findings go against current endeavors of defining, identifying, and targeting general intelligence as a tangible construct in language model development. This leaves the strategy of targeting a single conceptual ability without support, since the first-order abilities it would have to reach are often partially idiosyncratic and not identifiable in practice.