REVIEW 2 cited by
ByteSized32: A Corpus and Challenge Task for Generating Task-Specific World Models Expressed as Text Games
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In this work, we investigate the capacity of language models to generate explicit, interpretable, and interactive world models of scientific and common-sense reasoning tasks. We operationalize this as a task of generating text games, expressed as hundreds of lines of Python code. To facilitate this task, we introduce ByteSized32 (Code: github.com/cognitiveailab/BYTESIZED32), a corpus of 32 reasoning-focused text games totaling 20k lines of Python code. We empirically demonstrate that GPT-4 can use these games as templates for single-shot in-context learning, successfully producing runnable games on unseen topics in 28% of cases. When allowed to self-reflect on program errors, game runnability substantially increases to 57%. While evaluating simulation fidelity is labor-intensive, we introduce a suite of automated metrics to assess game fidelity, technical validity, adherence to task specifications, and winnability, showing a high degree of agreement with expert human ratings. We pose this as a challenge task to spur further development at the juncture of world modeling and code generation.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Large language models for artificial general intelligence (AGI): A survey of foundational principles and approaches
This survey argues that embodiment, symbol grounding, causality, and memory are the foundational principles needed to make large language models achieve artificial general intelligence.
-
PLANET: A Collection of Benchmarks for Evaluating LLMs' Planning Capabilities
A survey that catalogs and categorizes existing planning benchmarks for LLM agents and lists open gaps, without introducing new benchmarks, data, or experimental results.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.