Large language models (LLMs) are typically evaluated on adult-centric benchmarks that presume extensive world knowledge, long-form instruction following, and mature linguistic competence  ( ) . This evaluation regime makes it difficult to answer a different question that matters for both cognitive modeling and data-efficient AI  ( ) : what kinds of reasoning emerge when models are trained primarily on developmentally plausible input? In particular, “baby language models”—models trained on caregiver–child interaction data  ( ) , early-childhood text, and simplified perceptual or narrative inputs—invite evaluation paradigms aligned with the developmental trajectory of human cognition rather than expert adult performance. They also enable causal experiments (e.g., controlled-rearing studies) that can be hard to perform on children  ( ) .

We introduce  BabyReasoningBench, a curated collection of tasks grounded in classic findings from developmental psychology and infant cognition. The collection spans (i) theory-of-mind and belief attribution via explicit false-belief elicitation in preschoolers ( ) as well as implicit violation-of-expectation paradigms in infants ( ) and broader batteries summarized meta-analytically ( ) ; (ii) analogical reasoning and relational mapping across familiar causal transformations and story structures ( ) ; (iii) causal learning from evidence patterns (e.g., “blicket detector” inferences) ( ) , causal-structure induction and Bayesian-inspired learning accounts ( ) , and curiosity-driven exploration under confounding ( ) ; and (iv) core reasoning primitives that are known to be sensitive to memory, pragmatics, and inhibitory control, including transitive inference ( ) , counterfactual and counterfactual-as-possibility reasoning ( ) , category-based induction ( ) , pragmatic wording effects in class-inclusion queries ( ) , scientific control-of-variables reasoning ( ) , and conservation under accidental versus intentional transformations ( ) .

Evaluating baby language models on these paradigms serves three complementary goals. First, it anchors model behavior to human developmental baselines: many tasks exhibit sharp age-related transitions (e.g., false-belief performance shifting between ages 3–5 ( ) ), while others reveal competence under reduced language demands (e.g., implicit false-belief expectations in 15-month-olds ( ) ). Second, developmental tasks often disentangle reasoning from confounds such as pragmatic interpretation ( ) or executive demands ( ) , providing diagnostic leverage beyond aggregate accuracy. Third, these paradigms encourage mechanism-sensitive evaluation: success can depend on representing others’ beliefs, mapping relational structure, integrating evidence across trials, or proposing informative interventions—abilities that may (or may not) emerge under developmentally realistic training distributions.

Table  summarizes the task families in  BabyReasoningBench and the corresponding empirical signatures in human infants and children that motivate each evaluation setting.

Many of the reasoning tasks traditionally evaluated on children are straightforward for frontier models 2 footnote 2 2 footnote 2 While many of these traditional tasks are not necessarily evaluated through verbal cues, we verbalize each task as MCQs, and several of them (e.g., the Sally–Anne test) have been extensively discussed across several books and online making LLM based generation useful for such tasks. To construct  BabyReasoningBench in a way that is systematic and less sensitive to idiosyncratic question phrasing, we proceed as follows. We first provide OpenAI GPT-5.2  3 footnote 3 3 footnote 3 https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-2/ with a template containing the 19 tasks discussed in this paper, including a brief description of each task in tabular form, and instruct it to generate one multiple-choice question per task. After manually validating these seed questions, we then prompt GPT-5.2 to produce 10 additional variants for each seed, yielding 11 questions per task in total. This replication strategy helps normalize against potential pattern biases in baby language models by reducing reliance on any single wording or surface form. Finally, we manually review all generated MCQs and apply minor edits where questions or answers appear unreasonable, like missing context. Wherever possible, we try to keep the token length of the the answer choices similar, so our perplexity-based multiple-choice classification is less confounded by token counts, but we do not employ it as a hard constraint.

As a preliminary evaluation, we evaluate two BabyLM baselines trained on developmentally motivated corpora: BabyLM-10M  4 footnote 4 4 footnote 4 https://hf.co/BabyLM-community/babylm-baseline-10m-gpt2 and BabyLM-100M  5 footnote 5 5 footnote 5 https://hf.co/BabyLM-community/babylm-baseline-100m-gpt2  ( ) as both models have beene been pretrained on several datasets, including CHILDES  ( ) , using a next-token prediction objective. For each question, we build a prompt for each choice by concatenating the question and the choice, then score each choice by the conditional log-likelihood of its tokens given the question under the language model. The predicted answer is chosen as the option with the highest summed log-probability.

Table  and Figure  report task-wise accuracy for two BabyLM GPT-2 baselines. We find moderate to strong overall performance for both models, with only a modest difference between scales. The average accuracy is 52.15% for the 10M model and 53.59% for the 100M model, indicating that both models solve a meaningful subset of the benchmark, but in a highly non-uniform way across paradigms.

We introduced BabyReasoningBench, a benchmark of simple developmental reasoning tasks designed to evaluate baby language models inspired by classic experimental paradigms from developmental psychology. Because most of these tasks, when framed textually, are trivial for modern frontier models, they are especially useful as a diagnostic benchmark for small, developmentally trained models. The benchmark operationalizes theory of mind, analogical reasoning, causal inference, and several core reasoning primitives through multiple-choice questions, with task variants generated using an LLM (GPT-5.2) to systematically vary surface form while preserving logic.

Baseline results on two BabyLM GPT-2 models show that (i) performance is substantially below ceiling overall, (ii) increases in pre-training data yield meaningful gains on multiple causal and physical reasoning tasks, but (iii) belief attribution and pragmatics-sensitive tasks remain fragile and highly format-dependent rather than uniformly absent. The task-level dissociations—including sharp failures on class inclusion wording and inconsistent outcomes across false-belief formats—underscore why fine-grained developmentally grounded evaluation is valuable: it can separate reasoning competence from confounds tied to language form, framing, and inhibitory demands, and it can expose brittle generalization that would be invisible in aggregate benchmarks.

BabyReasoningBench is intended as a diagnostic instrument rather than a leaderboard-only dataset. Future work would (a) expand the tasks with other reasoning capabilities, (b) incorporate controlled manipulations of wording, memory load, and discourse context to disentangle pragmatics from reasoning, and (c) extend the suite to multimodal and interactive settings (e.g., simplified visual scenes and intervention selection) that more closely match the evidence available to infants and young children in behavioral experiments. We hope this benchmark supports more mechanism-sensitive evaluation of developmentally trained models and fine-grained empirical evaluations of which reasoning abilities can emerge from child-like input distributions.

Our work has some limitations, primarily stemming from the verbalisation of the tasks. While some of the tasks, like evaluating for analogies and counterfactuals, maintain their essence in textual form, others, like the Sally-Anne task and the blicket task, may arguably be better assessed with multimodal input, like their behavioral counterparts.

For some tasks, the MCQs may represent a subset of the actual reasoning behavior. For instance, the blinket task evaluates causal inference using indirect evidence but not disjunctive or conjunctive inference. We leave further fine-grained analysis, and additional MCQs for subsequent work.

The paper has been written with the help of OpenAI ChatGPT 5.2, and Grammarly. The ideas in the paper are solely from the author.

The author thanks Michael C. Frank (Department of Psychology, Stanford University) for helpful initial discussions.