Cognitive AI seeks to move beyond language generation and autonomous task execution toward systems capable of sustained reasoning, adaptive behavior, persistent memory, and self-regulation. While generative and agentic AI have demonstrated impressive capabilities across a wide range of tasks, many fundamental cognitive functions remain fragmented or weakly developed, limiting reliable operation over extended time horizons. This paper presents a taxonomy-driven survey of the major cognitive capability gaps that continue to constrain the development of Cognitive AI. The literature is organized around five dimensions: persistent state modeling, goal-directed autonomy, self-monitoring and control, environment interaction, and learning and adaptation. For each dimension, we review recent advances, identify recurring limitations, and discuss open research challenges. Building on these insights, we outline a conceptual Adaptive Cognitive Intelligence Architecture (ACIA) and examine emerging directions in cognition-centric evaluation. The proposed taxonomy provides a unified framework for organizing existing research, identifying unresolved challenges, and guiding the design of future cognitively capable systems. Together, the taxonomy, architectural perspective, and evaluation framework offer a roadmap for advancing AI systems that exhibit more reliable long-term reasoning, adaptive decision-making, and continual learning. The survey highlights key research opportunities toward more adaptive, reliable, and cognitively capable AI systems, providing a foundation for future progress toward Cognitive AI and, ultimately, Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
Despite widespread discussion of AGI, there is no clear framework for measuring progress toward it. This ambiguity fuels subjective claims, makes it difficult to track progress, and risks hindering responsible governance. As a starting point to address this gap, we present a framework for understanding system capabilities in relation to human cognitive abilities. Drawing from decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, we introduce a Cognitive Taxonomy that deconstructs general intelligence into 10 key cognitive faculties. We then propose a rigorous evaluation protocol in which a system's performance is measured across a suite of targeted, held-out cognitive tasks, generating a 'cognitive profile' that can be used to understand a system's strengths and weaknesses. We hope this framework will provide a practical roadmap and an initial step toward more rigorous, empirical evaluation of AGI.
The pursuit of artificial general intelligence necessitates robust methods for evaluating the cognitive capabilities of models beyond narrow task performance. Here, we introduce a psychometric framework to assess the cognitive profiles of generative AI, comparing them to human norms and tracking their evolution across generations. Initial evaluation of leading multimodal models using tasks adapted from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale revealed a profoundly uneven cognitive architecture: near-ceiling performance in verbal comprehension and working memory (>98th percentile) contrasted with near-floor performance in perceptual reasoning (<1st percentile). To track developmental trajectories beyond human-normed limits, we developed the Artificial Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) Benchmark and applied it to six generations and two model families, revealing significant but asymmetric performance gains. Notably, we uncovered a sharp dissociation between modalities; abstract quantitative reasoning matured far more rapidly when presented linguistically compared to a visually analogous format, indicating an architectural bias towards language-based symbolic manipulation. While abstract visual reasoning improved, visual-perceptual organization remained largely stagnant. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the cognitive abilities of generative models are evolving unevenly, suggesting that scaling and optimization approaches to AGI development alone may be insufficient to overcome fundamental architectural limitations in achieving balanced, human-like general intelligence.
Generative AI research increasingly confronts a shared problem: systems must sustain yet govern their own generative activity when uncertainty is high, evidence is missing, or context is insufficient. This position paper argues that metacognition should become the scientific framework for bounded and effective self governance in generative AI, where output generation is properly evaluated together with the capacities through which generative systems navigate and regulate their own activity. We advance this position by showing that bounded and effective AI self-governance requires metacognitive alignment across computational, algorithmic, and ecological levels. At the computational level, metacognition specifies the meta-level functions a system is meant to serve, such as monitoring, evaluation, control, and adaptation. At the algorithmic level, these functions are realized through procedures such as elicitation, iteration, and modularization. At the ecological level, metacognitive signals become meaningful, actionable, and accountable within the interface, workflow, and accountability arrangements. Metacognition thus makes it possible to conceive generative AI as both capable and well-governed, rather than treating capability and governance as competing aims.