How Far Can LLMs Improve from Experience? Measuring Test-Time Learning Ability in LLMs with Human Comparison
Jiayin Wang, Zhiquang Guo, Weizhi Ma, Min Zhang

TL;DR
This paper evaluates the ability of large language models to learn during test time through strategic semantic games, revealing their potential and current limitations compared to humans in experience-based reasoning tasks.
Contribution
It introduces a novel framework and semantic game benchmarks for assessing test-time learning in LLMs, highlighting their capabilities and gaps relative to humans.
Findings
LLMs show measurable test-time learning ability
Improvements in LLMs are less stable and slower than humans
Significant gap remains between LLMs and humans in experience-based reasoning
Abstract
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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsHigher Education Learning Practices
