Continuous Cognitive Coverage for Autonomous Robots via Event-Dependent Cognitive Treatment and Learning
Organizations: School of Computer Science, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, China
Abstract
Autonomous robots continuously encounter objects, changes, and situations, and every event admitted into cognition should receive an appropriate cognitive treatment rather than remain untreated until an explicit task requires attention. However, existing task-driven, reactive, or fixed-reasoning approaches generally process only selected events or apply predefined reasoning procedures, making it difficult to provide continuous cognitive coverage with differentiated treatment. This paper proposes a continuous cognitive coverage framework in which every cognitively admitted event is assigned an event-dependent cognitive treatment according to its state, context, and history. Different events may therefore invoke description, memory, risk prediction, planning, diagnosis, analogy, or other learned treatments. Familiar events can be processed automatically by learned mechanisms, whereas unfamiliar or uncertain events invoke explicit deliberation or fallback reasoning. Multiple cognitive processes can be suspended, resumed, and interleaved so that cognitive processing continues as new events arrive or existing events await evidence. Validated experiences are continuously learned to automate, refine, and revise event-specific treatments. Experiments achieve 96.76% structured treatment accuracy with 93.66% automatic processing, 92.64% cognitive coverage under bursty-delayed workloads, and 79.53% continual-learning joint accuracy, with novel-event reuse reaching 100% automatic processing.
Figures & tables
| Experiment | Training / initialization | Evaluation stream | Main stress factor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. 1 (V3) | 268 training + 42 calibration events | 82 test events (34 structured + 48 random) | held-out object identities and context changes |
| Exp. 2 (V2) | 220 nominal simulator steps | Low: 13.2; Medium: 43.7; High: 84.8; Bursty-delayed: 54.0 events | concurrency, bursts, deadlines, and delayed evidence |
| Exp. 3 (V2) | 198 pretraining materials | 64 events (28 familiar + 6 novel + 24 drift + 6 reuse) | novelty, delayed validation, outcome change, and reuse |
| Method | Overall treatment | Structured | Strict pair | Random robustness | Task/safety | Automatic | LLM calls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| accuracy | accuracy | success | accuracy | success | processing | per seed | |
| Task-Only | 23.41 4.59 | 23.53 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 | 23.33 7.84 | 49.23 10.46 | 0.00 0.00 | 0.0 0.0 |
| Fixed Treatment | 31.59 3.07 | 35.29 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 | 28.96 5.24 | 26.24 3.32 | 0.00 0.00 | 0.0 0.0 |
| DL-Only | 91.22 3.09 | 94.41 2.92 | 91.25 3.23 | 88.96 4.51 | 87.23 6.87 | 100.00 0.00 | 0.0 0.0 |
| Always-LLM | 66.34 3.95 | 97.35 0.93 | 100.00 0.00 | 44.38 6.88 | 59.04 6.79 | 0.00 0.00 | 82.0 0.0 |
| Proposed | 92.44 3.29 | 96.76 1.67 | 96.25 3.23 | 89.38 5.51 | 88.68 8.22 | 93.66 4.33 | 5.2 3.6 |
| Method | Low | Medium | High | Bursty-delayed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task-Bounded | 39.62 12.75 | 34.40 6.97 | 41.23 7.22 | 37.05 8.07 |
| Sequential | 100.00 0.00 | 86.42 13.00 | 40.43 3.56 | 53.68 13.61 |
| Reactive Priority | 82.67 12.99 | 59.28 4.23 | 46.89 3.99 | 35.75 5.64 |
| Proposed | 100.00 0.00 | 99.45 1.23 | 67.13 7.94 | 92.64 7.58 |
| High load | Bursty-delayed | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Critical miss | Critical deadline | Latency | Primary task | Critical miss | Critical deadline | Latency | Primary task |
| Task-Bounded | 54.60 9.90 | 27.68 9.20 | 9.05 5.79 | 67.85 7.62 | 65.93 13.52 | 28.46 11.47 | 2.90 1.80 | 80.85 8.08 |
| Sequential | 60.08 6.92 | 0.43 1.37 | 92.84 15.06 | 45.70 7.12 | 42.37 17.24 | 4.67 6.01 | 74.08 19.00 | 42.22 7.22 |
| Reactive Priority | 35.39 8.18 | 62.31 8.20 | 38.78 9.69 | 49.40 3.62 | 48.54 13.16 | 50.66 14.14 | 5.52 4.04 | 61.35 7.03 |
| Proposed | 0.00 0.00 | 70.39 11.36 | 40.53 12.03 | 49.70 5.37 | 0.00 0.00 | 66.79 16.62 | 26.66 14.37 | 55.82 5.57 |
| Method | Treatment | Outcome | Joint | Automatic | LLM calls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| accuracy | accuracy | accuracy | processing | per seed | |
| Always-LLM | 74.84 3.86 | 76.09 1.96 | 60.00 3.39 | 0.00 0.00 | 64.0 0.0 |
| Offline MultiHead | 86.56 2.68 | 63.28 5.12 | 53.91 5.27 | 53.12 6.79 | 30.0 4.3 |
| Continual Outcome-Only | 43.12 2.78 | 82.66 2.70 | 34.06 2.83 | 88.12 1.68 | 7.6 1.1 |
| Proposed | 92.34 2.01 | 85.78 2.14 | 79.53 3.16 | 75.62 2.35 | 15.6 1.5 |
| Method | Novel first joint | Novel reuse joint | Novel reuse automatic | Drift initial joint | Drift late joint | Delayed revision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Always-LLM | 51.67 5.27 | 83.33 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 | 25.00 0.00 | 74.17 2.64 | 66.67 0.00 |
| Offline MultiHead | 50.00 0.00 | 83.33 0.00 | 0.00 0.00 | 17.50 12.08 | 17.50 12.08 | 0.00 0.00 |
| Continual Outcome-Only | 41.67 8.78 | 83.33 0.00 | 100.00 0.00 | 25.00 0.00 | 50.00 0.00 | 33.33 0.00 |
| Proposed | 50.00 0.00 | 100.00 0.00 | 100.00 0.00 | 25.00 0.00 | 99.17 2.64 | 100.00 0.00 |
| Hong Su received the MS and PhD degrees, in 2006 and 2022, respectively, from Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. He is currently a researcher of Chengdu University of Information Technology Chengdu, China. His research interests include blockchain, large language model and human simulation computing. |
Cognitive Architectures for AI Agents
Cognitive architectures for AI agents organize perception, memory, goals, reasoning, and action into systems for persistent, adaptive behavior.
See all 85 papers