How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and without direct comparison to behavioral data. We introduce DevBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising seven language evaluation tasks spanning the domains of lexical, syntactic, and semantic ability, with behavioral data from both children and adults. We evaluate a set of vision-language models on these tasks, comparing models and humans on their response patterns, not their absolute performance. Across tasks, models exhibit variation in their closeness to human response patterns, and models that perform better on a task also more closely resemble human behavioral responses. We also examine the developmental trajectory of OpenCLIP over training, finding that greater training results in closer approximations to adult response patterns. DevBench thus provides a benchmark for comparing models to human language development. These comparisons highlight ways in which model and human language learning processes diverge, providing insight into entry points for improving language models.

How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision–language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and without direct comparison to behavioral data. We introduce DevBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising seven language evaluation tasks spanning the domains of lexical, syntactic, and semantic ability, with behavioral data from both children and adults. We evaluate a set of vision–language models on these tasks, comparing models and humans on their response patterns, not their absolute performance.

LLM-as-a-Judge offers a promising alternative to human judges across various tasks, yet inherent biases, particularly position bias - a systematic preference for answers based on their position in the prompt - compromise its effectiveness. Our study investigates this issue by developing a framework to systematically study and quantify position bias using metrics such as repetitional consistency, positional consistency, and positional fairness. We conduct experiments with 9 judge models across 22 tasks from the MTBench and DevBench benchmarks and nearly 40 answer-generating models, generating approximately 80,000 evaluation instances. This comprehensive assessment reveals significant variations in bias across judges and tasks. Although GPT-4 often excels in positional consistency and fairness, some more cost-effective models perform comparably or even better in specific tasks, highlighting essential trade-offs between consistency, fairness, and cost. Our results also demonstrate high consistency of judgment across repetitions, confirming that position bias is not due to random variations. This research significantly contributes to the field by introducing new concepts for understanding position bias and providing a multi-dimensional framework for evaluation. These insights guide the selection of optimal judge models, enhance benchmark design, and lay the foundation for future research into effective debiasing strategies, ultimately enhancing the reliability of LLM evaluators.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced their coding capabilities. However, existing benchmarks predominantly focused on simplified or isolated aspects of programming, such as single-file code generation or repository issue debugging, falling short of measuring the full spectrum of challenges raised by real-world programming activities. To this end, we propose DevBench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates LLMs across various stages of the software development lifecycle, including software design, environment setup, implementation, acceptance testing, and unit testing. DevBench features a wide range of programming languages and domains, high-quality data collection, and carefully designed and verified metrics for each task. Empirical studies show that current LLMs, including GPT-4-Turbo, fail to solve the challenges presented within DevBench. Analyses reveal that models struggle with understanding the complex structures in the repository, managing the compilation process, and grasping advanced programming concepts. Our findings offer actionable insights for the future development of LLMs toward real-world programming applications. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/open-compass/DevBench