# CheeseBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Rodent Behavioral Neuroscience Paradigms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10825 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10825/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12191/) (2024)
- [VQA: Visual Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1505.00468/) (2015)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [MathVista: Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning of Foundation Models in Visual Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02255/) (2023)
- [Expanding Performance Boundaries of Open-Source Multimodal Models with Model, Data, and Test-Time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05271/) (2024)
- [ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.03768/) (2020)
- [Emergent Analogical Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09196/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [NeuroState-Bench: A Human-Calibrated Benchmark for Commitment Integrity in LLM Agent Profiles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.01847/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We introduce CheeseBench, a benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on nine classical behavioral neuroscience paradigms (Morris water maze, Barnes maze, T-maze, radial arm maze, star maze, operant chamber, shuttle box, conditioned place preference, and delayed non-match to sample), spanning six cognitive dimensions. Each task is grounded in peer-reviewed rodent protocols with approximate animal baselines. The agent receives a unified system prompt with no task-specific instructions and must discover goals purely from ASCII text observations and reward signals, much like a rodent placed into an unfamiliar apparatus. We evaluate six open-weight LLMs (3B to 72B parameters) on text-based ASCII renderings and compare against both a random baseline and a graph-based reinforcement learning agent. Our best model (Qwen2.5-VL-7B) reaches 52.6% average success on ASCII input, compared to 32.1% for random agents and 78.9% for approximate rodent baselines. We find that (1) scaling beyond 7B yields diminishing returns, (2) longer context history degrades performance, (3) chain-of-thought prompting hurts rather than helps, and (4) a vision-language architecture provides an advantage at 7B but hurts at 32B. Because the same model's performance ranges from 20% to 57% depending on interface parameters alone, these results characterize the agent-plus-interface system, not the model in isolation. Under this unified zero-shot ASCII protocol, current open-weight LLM agents remain well below approximate rodent reference values, particularly on tasks requiring spatial navigation and within-trial state tracking.