A Benchmark for Evaluating Cognitive Reasoning in Modern Language Models

With the growth of large language models (LLMs), there are increasing calls to interpret their behavior through the prism of analogies to human cognitive mechanisms. At the same time, scientific literature points to the fundamental limitations of these systems, describing them, among other things, as models that generate a superficial simulation of reasoning without real access to semantic meanings (“stochastic parrots” or “illusion of reasoning”). This paper proposes an innovative, modular benchmark for assessing the cognitive competence of LLMs, integrating three complementary dimensions of language processing: factual, syntactic, and logical. Eight language models (LLama 3.2, Mistral 7B, LLama 3:8B, Gemini 2.5 Flash, ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4o mini, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-5) were tested using a uniform procedure with context reset after each interaction and a three-point scoring scheme (0/0.5/1). The results obtained showed a clear advantage for the largest models in tasks based on general knowledge and formal transformations known from training, with a significant decrease in effectiveness, regardless of model size, in tasks requiring conjunctive reasoning based solely on new, local premises. Importantly, unstable but measurable corrective abilities of some models were also observed after feedback, suggesting the presence of reactive mechanisms, but were insufficient to consider them systems capable of cognitive self-reflection. The combined analysis indicates that LLMs effectively simulate syntax and logic rules when the task corresponds to recognizable formal patterns, but fail in situations requiring the construction of new, coherent chains of beliefs and symbolic inferences, which undermines the thesis of their cognitive “understanding”. The results justify the need to create more complex and semantically restrictive evaluation frameworks that will allow distinguishing statistical fit from systemic, multi-stage formal reasoning. The proposed benchmark is a step towards a more multidimensional and diagnostic evaluation of LLMs, shifting the focus from “will the model respond correctly?” to “why and under what conditions is the model able to reason?”

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Sciences
Published
2026-02-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/app16041918
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Benchmark for Evaluating Cognitive Reasoning in Modern Language Models

Michał Bereta, Kinga Piętka
Applied Sciences
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

A Benchmark for Evaluating Cognitive Reasoning in Modern Language Models

Michał Bereta, Kinga Piętka
article en

Abstract

With the growth of large language models (LLMs), there are increasing calls to interpret their behavior through the prism of analogies to human cognitive mechanisms. At the same time, scientific literature points to the fundamental limitations of these systems, describing them, among other things, as models that generate a superficial simulation of reasoning without real access to semantic meanings (“stochastic parrots” or “illusion of reasoning”). This paper proposes an innovative, modular benchmark for assessing the cognitive competence of LLMs, integrating three complementary dimensions of language processing: factual, syntactic, and logical. Eight language models (LLama 3.2, Mistral 7B, LLama 3:8B, Gemini 2.5 Flash, ChatGPT-3, ChatGPT-4o mini, ChatGPT-4, and ChatGPT-5) were tested using a uniform procedure with context reset after each interaction and a three-point scoring scheme (0/0.5/1). The results obtained showed a clear advantage for the largest models in tasks based on general knowledge and formal transformations known from training, with a significant decrease in effectiveness, regardless of model size, in tasks requiring conjunctive reasoning based solely on new, local premises. Importantly, unstable but measurable corrective abilities of some models were also observed after feedback, suggesting the presence of reactive mechanisms, but were insufficient to consider them systems capable of cognitive self-reflection. The combined analysis indicates that LLMs effectively simulate syntax and logic rules when the task corresponds to recognizable formal patterns, but fail in situations requiring the construction of new, coherent chains of beliefs and symbolic inferences, which undermines the thesis of their cognitive “understanding”. The results justify the need to create more complex and semantically restrictive evaluation frameworks that will allow distinguishing statistical fit from systemic, multi-stage formal reasoning. The proposed benchmark is a step towards a more multidimensional and diagnostic evaluation of LLMs, shifting the focus from “will the model respond correctly?” to “why and under what conditions is the model able to reason?”

Applied SciencesVol. 16(4)
Cracow University of Technology (PL)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A Benchmark for Evaluating Cognitive Reasoning in Modern Language Models — Michał Bereta, Kinga Piętka · Applied Sciences (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS