Cognitive Science

Concepts are commonly defined as abstract, compact representations of knowledge and treated as basic units of intelligent behavior. Yet, cognition, psychology, and AI lack a shared mathematical language for them. Modern systems represent concepts as vectors, distributions, symbols, graphs, and other structures, but these formalisms are typically treated as competing rather than as solutions to a common problem. We propose an operation-based view that evaluates mathematical frameworks by the conceptual operations they support, identifying thirteen operations (including similarity, composition, generalization, and grounding) that recur across cognition, psychology, and AI. We show that ten frameworks embody distinct commitments to concepts as self-contained content, relational structure, or evolving process, and that these commitments determine which operations each supports naturally. For example, vector-based models facilitate graded similarity and generalization but struggle with explicit composition, whereas symbolic models support composition but offer but generalize poorly. No single framework we examined naturally supports all operations without extension. We test this account empirically using categorization as a case study, operationalizing nine theories on the same items against human judgments. Despite addressing the same conceptual question, the theories produce different procedures and results, demonstrating that mathematical commitment shapes what a theory can explain. We call for hybrid formalisms that treat content, relation, and process as jointly primary.

The categorization of cognitive and resting states derived from electroencephalography (EEG) signals is crucial for comprehending fluctuations in brain activity linked to various mental states. EEG provides a non-intrusive approach for documenting brain function in both resting and task-oriented cognitive conditions, whilst deep learning techniques enable the automatic extraction of significant patterns from intricate EEG data. This study presents a deep learning framework to distinguish between resting and cognitive states through EEG records. The proposed framework integrates a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) stacked with a Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) for the extraction of features from EEG signals. Time-frequency analysis is conducted to explore the salient aspects of signals, and the derived features are then assessed utilizing conventional deep learning and machine learning classifiers, including the suggested 2D-Net architecture. The proposed approach and feature extraction strategy outperform the evaluated comparative methods, achieving accuracies of 83.177% for resting-versus-mathematical task classification, 76.107% for resting-versus-memory task classification, and 83.432% for resting-versus-music task classification. The findings illustrate the efficacy of integrating signal processing with deep learning methodologies to discriminate resting from cognitive states utilizing EEG signals.

This article presents a mathematical model of the Motivated Emotional Mind cognitive architecture developed for embodied intelligent systems. Such a system learns to maintain its homeostasis through a generalized form of reinforcement learning based on its internal motivations, termed motivated learning (ML). The principal contribution of this article is a rigorous formalization of the re-entrant loop integrating feedforward processing, lateral interactions, and feedback pathways, together with the representational selection mechanisms that govern adaptive system responses. The model specifies how ongoing exteroceptive and interoceptive signals, bodily-motivational context, and memory traces are bound into associative memory structures termed semblions, which compete for access to further processing and top-down reconstruction. The formalization encompasses secondary perception, representational competition, curiosity, procedural gaps, and action selection directed toward limiting allostatic violations. Within this framework, motivated learning is tailored to embodied systems whose dynamics are shaped by needs, affect, and the current regulatory state. Unlike standard reinforcement-learning models, the proposed approach incorporates need thresholds, goal generation and shifting goals, bodily state, resource constraints, and action uncertainty, thereby providing a more adequate account of response selection under regulatory pressure. Global affect functions as a central control signal, modulating the learning rate, representational valence, and the balance between exploration and exploitation. The model presented here is a step toward a more rigorous formalization of cognitive phenomena and may provide a basis for further theoretical analysis, computer simulation, and implementation in artificial-intelligence systems inspired by biological processes.

Cognitive offloading to AI can reduce opportunities to practice skills, creating risks of deskilling. However, it remains unclear how to prevent deskilling without restricting access to AI. Here, we design two interventions to reduce offloading decisions: (1) metacognitive feedback that makes the implications of offloading for users explicit, and (2) an effort-based reward that incentivizes less extensive LLM assistance. We test both in a preregistered online experiment ($N = 704$) with a 2$\times$2 design and a no-AI control. The task was to practice fraction arithmetic with an LLM-based assistant that provided solutions only on explicit request, followed by an unaided test. Metacognitive feedback reduced answer offloading (OR $= 0.47$) and improved test performance (OR $= 1.51$). We found no evidence that the reward affected either outcome. Our results identify metacognitive feedback as a promising design choice to reduce cognitive offloading.

In both cognitive science and computer science, goals are conceptualized as cognitive states that flexibly combine with world knowledge to organize and specify purposeful behavior. In this way, goals are compositional representations whose content relates to rational behavior. We here draw attention to goals as representations and their content because it highlights a parallel with other areas in cognitive science - in particular, the syntax-semantics interface in linguistics and logic - while also foregrounding foundational questions about the expressivity, design, and efficiency of different goal representations. For example, goals are typically taken as fixed and imposing constraints on desirable behaviors, but we can also identify constraints on goal representations themselves, such as whether a particular goal language is sufficiently expressive to capture behaviors of interest, or whether different goal representations capture the same behavior. Here, we synthesize work that aims to characterize the properties of different goal representations and suggest these are points of a broader design space. We close by discussing how distinguishing the form and meaning of goals can elucidate the implicit assumptions we make about goals, inform the study of interactions between higher-level cognition and motivation, and isolate axes of variation for different conceptions of goals.

Language agents remain brittle in interactive environments, where success requires long-horizon state tracking, valid action execution, and recovery from failed steps. We extend SwiftSage, a dual-process agent that combines a fast action proposer with a slower planner, using two modular cognitive extensions: an Adaptive Memory Module (AMM) for salience-gated episodic storage and trigger-driven retrieval, and a Self-Reflection Module (SRM) for bounded execution-time validation and corrective intervention. Both modules are implemented as feature-flagged extensions over the same execution substrate, enabling controlled ablations on ScienceWorld. Across four configurations---baseline, baseline+AMM, baseline+SRM, and the full system---the full system achieves the best mean final score (64.62), success rate (43.17%), and successful-step efficiency (19.33 steps), while SRM is the strongest standalone contributor. The results suggest that execution-time control is the dominant bottleneck in this setting, while episodic memory becomes most useful once the runtime loop is stabilized.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is changing how students learn, yet the roles of course context, cognitive reliance, evaluation literacy, and early reliance remain underexplored. Using survey responses from 118 students across 12 AI-related courses at our institution, we examined differences in GenAI use and perceived learning experiences. We identified four user clusters: high-use students reporting many benefits, light users reporting less reliance and fewer benefits, and two moderate-use groups reporting different levels of benefit. We also found significant differences between free- and premium-version users, single- and multiple-tool users, and students experiencing different instructor policies. In multivariable regression models, academic benefit was associated with early reliance and academic task support; positive impact was associated with cognitive reliance, academic task support, confidence in GenAI reliability, and instructor policy; and negative impact was associated with early reliance and attitudinal change. The association between early reliance and negative impact became stronger as evaluation literacy increased. Finally, perceptions of GenAI-enhanced learning appear to reflect cognitive, performance, and self-efficacy benefits, while concerns about stress and diminished critical thinking are associated with lower perceived learning benefits. These findings suggest that institutions need better policies to address such inequities so that institutions can enable students to benefit from increasingly capable AI systems.

Chess has long served as a model domain for studying search, expertise, decision-making, and artificial intelligence. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) has renewed the relevance of chess as a controlled environment for investigating strategic reasoning and comparing human and artificial decision-making. We present a systematic mapping study of recent research spanning human players, classical chess engines, neural and reinforcement-learning systems, LLMs, and hybrid approaches. The final map comprises 84 core study families, classified according to agent type, strategic-reasoning stages, and evaluation dimensions. The map reveals a literature strongly concentrated on situation assessment, evaluation, and action selection, while explicit planning, explanation, metacognition, and human--AI collaboration remain less explored. LLM research places particular emphasis on state representation and generalization, whereas grounded explanation appears more frequently in hybrid approaches combining language models with engines, expert knowledge, or other external structures. Two distinctions emerge that the map aggregates rather than resolves: hybrid systems differ in where and when heterogeneous capabilities combine, and evaluations that show improved human performance do not thereby establish human--AI synergy. We propose both as extensions of the mapping framework. We argue that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identify explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.

Lifelong conversational agents rely on memory systems to maintain deep, context-aware interactions with users. However, existing explicit textual memory pipelines suffer from a severe information bottleneck, often losing subtle behavioral patterns and emotional shifts. Furthermore, being typically static post-deployment, they cannot autonomously adapt to personal habits and preferences without manual feedback. Cognitive science, however, suggests that humans maintain mental models purely in a latent space and continuously refine them through predictive coding. Inspired by this, we propose \textbf{ThinkFlow}, a novel end-to-end latent memory framework for lifelong conversational agents. ThinkFlow bypasses the text bottleneck by dynamically compressing conversational flows into probabilistic latent memory skills, autonomously consolidating complex user states into disentangled, continuous vectors without semantic interference. To break this barrier, we introduce a test-time evolution paradigm. By coupling teacher-guided latent alignment to bootstrap the initial state with a self-supervised next-user-utterance prediction task for continuous refinement, the framework successfully overcomes cold-start challenges and achieves label-free lifelong personalization. Extensive experiments on long-term conversation benchmarks demonstrate that ThinkFlow significantly outperforms prevailing memory systems, providing highly personalized and contextually accurate responses over extended multi-session interactions.

Probability is fundamental to theories of language comprehension, production, acquisition, and evolution, as well as to large language models. Existing theories estimate the probability of syntactic structures from language-specific data. Whether part of this probability structure can arise independently of language-specific experience remains unknown. Here I show that a universal prior over syntactic structures emerges from a cognitively motivated model of incremental language production, in which words are progressively integrated into syntactic structure through network growth. The resulting prior assigns probabilities to syntactic structures --represented as dependency trees-- without fitting parameters to linguistic data, and assigns higher probabilities to attested than to random trees in all 138 typologically diverse languages examined. These prior probabilities correlate positively with probabilities estimated from corpora in 33 of 34 languages. The results indicate that part of the probability structure of syntax can arise independently of language-specific statistical learning. Linguistic experience may therefore refine probabilities that are already structured by the process of language production, rather than create them from an initially uniform space. This identifies a possible cognitive origin for part of the probability distribution over syntactic structures, linking language production and statistical learning while providing a data-independent structural bias for probabilistic models of language.

Large brains are metabolically costly, and associations with changing environments do not imply they evolved there, as the Cognitive Buffer Hypothesis (CBH) would suggest. They may instead evolve in stable conditions and later facilitate colonization of changing environments. Using neuro-evolution in an artificial seasonal foraging task, we compared agents evolving exclusively in changing environments to agents first evolved in static environments before transitioning. Results show that larger neural networks in dynamic environments arise mainly from prior static evolution, achieving superior performance under unpredictable changes. Our results challenge strict CBH predictions, provide agent-based (computational) support for a colonization-based account and highlight the role of evolutionary history in brain size evolution.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) enable autonomous GUI navigation, but agents still struggle to process and learn from dense, continuous visual histories. This bottleneck hinders both immediate error correction within a single episode (intra-trial) and experience distillation across multiple attempts (cross-trial). We trace these challenges to an empirical informational asymmetry in GUI navigation: while expected transitions can often be compressed into lightweight textual summaries, unexpected outcomes benefit from preserved screenshots as causal evidence for accurate diagnosis. Building on this insight, we propose AnchorGUI, a unified framework driven by the Cognitive State Anchor (CSA). The CSA acts as a per-step primitive that actively compares expected and observed transitions, converting passive multimodal trajectories into explicit prediction-error signals. These signals orchestrate a dual-scale learning mechanism via an asymmetric memory. For intra-trial correction, a sliding window selectively retains visual evidence for detected mismatches, providing immediate, visually-grounded feedback. For cross-trial distillation, this asymmetric memory focuses the computationally expensive credit assignment search space on likely failure steps. Experiments across four benchmarks validate the effectiveness of our approach. On AndroidWorld, AnchorGUI achieves a 57.3% success rate with a $2.4\times$ token reduction per step. Furthermore, cross-trial distillation reaches 69.2% success (+11.9% gain), significantly outperforming standard reflection methods while maintaining sub-linear context scaling.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has empowered Large Language Models (LLMs) to tackle knowledge-intensive tasks. However, navigating global, heterogeneous knowledge bases (large-scale knowledge graphs and text corpora) for complex reasoning remains a challenge. Existing methods typically employ reactive, graph-driven exploration strategies, which blindly follow graph topology without adapting to the question context or evolving exploration progress, and lack deep bidirectional synergy between graph and text. To address these limitations, we propose CoG (Cognition on Graph), a cognitive-inspired, training-free framework for adaptive knowledge exploration. Drawing inspiration from human problem-solving, CoG performs a continuous plan-explore-reflect cycle, where it proactively formulates investigation plans, performs dual-source retrieval, and dynamically reflects on progress to adjust strategies. Crucially, it establishes deep bidirectional synergy between structured graph and unstructured text, where entities extracted from text dynamically guide graph exploration to bridge knowledge gaps. Extensive experiments on seven multi-hop QA benchmarks demonstrate that CoG significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods while achieving superior exploration efficiency. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/zhougengxian/CoG.

Cognitive Diagnosis Models (CDMs) play a pivotal role in personalized online learning. Traditional CDMs rely on discrete, ID-based embeddings to represent students, exercises, and concepts. This paradigm diverges from the nature of learner cognition, where knowledge is not stored and retrieved as isolated symbols. As a result, CDMs suffer from semantic limitations when new exercises or concepts appear. In this paper, we propose a Process-aware Language Cognitive Diagnosis (PLCD) framework that uses language-derived structures as cognitive priors and response records to calibrate student posterior states. PLCD leverages large language models (LLMs) to construct concept schemas and cognitive process graphs, and uses target-conditioned semantic memory to retrieve historical responses that are relevant to each target exercise. A process-grounded Language-to-Cognition Mapper with DA-MoE experts and process-level contrastive learning then maps the textual evidence into a unified cognitive space. Experimental results show that PLCD not only outperforms traditional baselines in predicting student performance but also exhibits strong cognitive transfer capabilities. These results connect the computational power of LLMs with the psychometric goal of measuring latent knowledge states, suggesting that structured language priors calibrated by response records can improve cold-start robustness and cognitive grounding.

Spatial reasoning depends not only on metric properties such as distance, angle, and shape, but also on topological relations that remain invariant under continuous deformation. Cognitive science identifies these relations as foundational to spatial understanding, yet foundation-model evaluations largely focus on metric or viewpoint-dependent relations. We introduce MindTopo, a benchmark of topological intuition across five properties grounded in cognitive science and formal topology: continuity, separation, order, enclosure, and knots. MindTopo evaluates each property at two cognitive levels. Reasoning asks a model to identify topological relations or infer how they change. Planning instantiates a foundation model as a closed-loop agent whose policy selects environment actions. MindTopo contains 11,030 instances across 13 procedurally generated task types with controllable difficulty. We benchmark 14 MLLMs and study agent configurations augmented with image and video generation, including 3 video generative models in planning settings. Every MLLM performs better on reasoning than on planning, and the best-performing model remains far below observed human performance. On Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct, supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning improve reasoning more than planning. Generated observations retain local cues and reach plausible endpoints, but audited rollouts do not reliably follow environment dynamics or preserve topology across transitions. Our website is at https://mind-topo.github.io/

Humans organize knowledge into a taxonomy of concepts with nested levels of abstraction and a \emph{basic level} at which people recognize and name objects with the least cognitive effort. Cobweb is a classic cognitive account of this ability, an incremental learner that builds a probabilistic concept hierarchy by maximizing category utility. We argue that diffusion models, although designed for image synthesis, implicitly perform the same computation. The noisy marginals of a diffusion model are Gaussian smoothings of the data distribution, and the modes of these marginals form a hierarchy that corresponds to a Cobweb tree of probabilistic prototypes in four respects. Both are hierarchical density models, both are hierarchical-Bayesian models with Gaussian prototypes, both treat categorization as score-following that reduces uncertainty, and in both a basic level emerges. We locate this basic level for a diffusion model at an intermediate noise level, where recent analyses show that the reverse process commits to the class identity of a sample. The two models differ mainly in how they represent and learn the taxonomy. Cobweb learns a discrete tree incrementally, whereas a diffusion model encodes a continuous, interpolable hierarchy in a single learned score field fit to the data distribution. We test the correspondence on MNIST and Fashion-MNIST by recovering the diffusion hierarchy through mode-finding and comparing the basic levels of the two models. This reframes diffusion as a cognitive model of concept formation and offers Cobweb a continuous, scalable instantiation.

Auto-research agents have shown the potential to automate hypothesis generation, experiment execution, and iterative refinement. However, scaling this paradigm to industry-scale recommendation models introduces two challenges: (1) long feedback loops, where model training can take days, making serial iteration prohibitively slow and requiring parallel exploration across multiple research directions; and (2) system complexity, where large configurations, fragile infrastructure dependencies, and multi-day GPU jobs require robust and recoverable execution. We present Auto-RecSys, an autonomous research system for long-horizon experimentation on industry-scale recommendation models. Auto-RecSys addresses these challenges through three harness designs: (1) distributed asynchronous execution for running multiple experiments in parallel across servers, (2) centralized cross-server memory for persistent and recoverable execution across sessions and failures, and (3) cognitive-procedural separation, where natural-language skill files guide LLM reasoning while deterministic scripts enforce operational correctness. Auto-RecSys further employs a dual-loop self-evolving architecture: an Execution Evolution Loop in which model-specific playbooks accumulate operational knowledge by recording failed attempts and crystallizing successful pipelines, and an Idea Evolution Loop in which experimental outcomes inform subsequent ideation. Evaluated on recommendation models, Auto-RecSys significantly reduces the human time required per experiment cycle and improves execution reliability as its playbooks mature.

As Digital Twin (DT) systems evolve beyond state synchronization toward task-oriented and knowledge-driven operation, Cognitive Digital Twins (CDTs) have emerged as an extension that incorporates cognitive capabilities into twin operation. Existing CDT studies often focus on specific enabling techniques, such as learning modules, knowledge graphs, and large language models, while providing limited insight into how cognition can be systematically integrated into DT architectures. To address this issue, this paper proposes a four-layer CDT architecture consisting of the physical layer, digital-twin layer, cognitive layer, and task layer. The proposed architecture establishes a self-evolving closed operational loop spanning these four layers, in which physical states are synchronized into digital representations, cognition constructs task-specific cognitive models through knowledge, memory, and attention, and task-level decisions are generated under practical constraints. Operational feedback further refines cognitive experience and updates relationships and annotations in the digital representation, enabling subsequent task interpretation, initiation, and reasoning to evolve with system operation. Based on this framework, two representative operation modes are characterized: user-request-driven cognition and self-driven cognition. We further discuss key enabling mechanisms and deployment challenges associated with semantic communication, knowledge querying, task orchestration, and closed-loop synchronization. A lightweight simulation study illustrates reliable closed-loop task feasibility under limited semantic information and improved operational efficiency through accumulated task experience. The proposed framework provides a structured foundation for the design and development of future CDT systems.

This study evaluates Vibe Coding, an emerging AI-led conversational programming paradigm that enables developers to generate software through natural-language interaction with large language models. Using a mixed-methods design, the study assessed performance efficiency, cognitive implications, and responsible adoption in comparison with traditional and AI-assisted coding environments. Thirty participants, including professional developers and advanced computing students, completed equivalent programming tasks under three experimental conditions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and repeated-measures ANOVA, while qualitative data were examined through thematic analysis. Results show that vibe coding significantly improved development efficiency, reducing task completion time by 27% compared with traditional coding and 12% compared with AI-assisted coding. However, these gains were accompanied by lower maintainability indices and higher security vulnerabilities, indicating trade-offs in software quality. Usability results yielded a good rating (SUS = 71.4), while cognitive workload remained moderate (NASA-TLX = 55.5), reflecting reduced syntactic effort but increased linguistic reasoning. Thematic analysis identified trust calibration, loss of control, cognitive adaptation, and prompt-engineering strategy as key constructs. Notably, perceived loss of control was associated with increased security risks due to reduced transparency and validation of AI-generated outputs. Based on these findings, the study proposes a three-pillar framework for responsible adoption: hybrid integration of human and AI capabilities, human oversight and transparent accountability, and context-aware deployment. Overall, vibe coding enhances productivity but requires critical oversight, reinforcing its role as a transformative yet transitional paradigm in software development.

We approach a cognitive simulation perspective on episodic and semantic memory in multiple-choice question answering by incorporating text from individual text corpora (ITC) into retrieval-augmented generation and DoRA fine-tuning. We web-crawl the search histories of 515 participants who answered 36 multiple-choice knowledge items and analyze a stratified subsample of 150 participants. For each participant, one DoRA adapter consolidates their ITC into a small language model (SLM) whose baseline correctness falls below the participants' lowest quartile. The adapter measurably writes the ITC into the weights: it fits its own participant's held-out text better than other participants' texts (dz =1.27), an individuality effect that increases with ITC size in rank order. On the generalized knowledge test, however, the adapter adds knowledge rather than alignment with the individual: log-loss match improves, whereas match accuracy under a bias-corrected PMI readout does not, and retrieval adds nothing on top. Our results demonstrate that ITCs can be consolidated into the weights of SLMs, an encouraging basis for individualized tutoring agents, and we discuss how to move from there toward a realistic simulation of episodic and semantic memory at the individual level.

Frontier gains in language-model reasoning come from reinforcement learning on reasoning traces and are concentrated in domains with a cheap, sound verifier. We argue the field's binding constraint is the verification gap: no scalable, incorruptible reward for reasoning outside formal domains. We make four contributions. (1) Theory: in a joint-Gaussian model of best-of-N selection, verifier-gold correlation rho is the exact exchange rate between test-time compute and capability, and an unsound verifier pays a polynomial penalty N^(1/rho^2); a margin-free copula form predicts realized soundness of real LLM judges to 4% median error. (2) Demonstration: in program-synthesis testbeds with executable ground truth, including a pre-registered scaled replication, unsound verifiers lose Soundness-under-Pressure as optimization grows (0.94 to 0.32 at N=4096) while a sound verifier improves monotonically; reality-anchored settlement beats a frozen verifier under i.i.d. and adversarial pressure, driving the hacking gap from ~0.27 to ~0; soundness scales log-linearly with settled labels, with on-policy settlement ~10x more label-efficient than random labeling. With real LLM judges and unit-test execution as gold, a weak judge loses soundness under best-of-N (p<0.001), a stronger judge is more robust, and selection alone manufactures +0.53 hacking gaps from honest samples. Under real GRPO training, a frozen reward model traces the full overoptimization curve (executed reward collapses 90%) while the same model refit on a 10% settlement stream preserves 6x the executed reward. (3) Paradigm: proof-carrying cognition, where reasoning steps are typed probabilistic claims priced by a self-built world model trained only on held-out reality and settled by proper scoring rules. (4) Benchmark: we specify Soundness-under-Pressure as the headline metric for a reality-settled reasoning benchmark.

Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (\textsc{AutoCog}), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories \textsc{AutoCog} found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently confident, eloquent, and well versed. A natural question arises: do they know what they don't know? To answer this question, we borrow the concept of epistemic honesty and develop a novel metric to systematically evaluate whether an LLM appropriately acknowledges the boundaries of its knowledge. In this work, we introduce the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and construct EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions. From a frozen registry of 21 model API routes, 15 completed the protocol after endpoint and eligibility checks; 14 entered the confirmatory analysis because severe provider-side truncation made one route's score indeterminate. The study reveals substantial variation across models, including a difference that can not be explained by their capability to extract explicitly available information. Composite EHQ ranges from 0.31 to 0.81 across the analysed panel, despite near-ceiling performance on the document-grounded capability probe. The two restraint criteria overlap strongly under the present category composition, whereas substantive-answer calibration varies across models and does not reliably co-vary with restraint; however, the small panel leaves substantial uncertainty. Thus, EHQ reveals behavioral differences that are not visible to conventional correctness-based assessment, while also showing why dataset composition, provider behavior, and confidence elicitation must remain part of the interpretation.

Language models compute over tokens: language is their input, their output, and increasingly their internal representation. Whether language should keep all of these positions depends on what language does to the system that uses it. The one system with a century of data on that question is the human. We review what language does to human perception, the brain, and thought, and read the same evidence against multimodal models and language models. Throughout, we treat language as a compressor that runs on a shared codebook: a word is an index, the content is in the receiver, and a community maintains the codebook. In humans the compression is measurable, learning the codebook reorganizes the senses, and thought survives the loss of language. We then measure the rule that models apply when two cues disagree, with cue-conflict experiments on six vision-language models and two robot policies. Surviving cues are weighted in the order their reliabilities prescribe, at 11 to 82% of the ideal observer's slope, and many answers copy the text. One policy family drops a cue that adds no information beyond the others rather than down-weighting it, another keeps it at a weight that fails when the cues conflict, and a visual cue that identifies the task in every training frame is never learned, because the language pathway already fits the data. Language models are the best current models of the human language network, and they have entered the human speech community, shifting word frequencies while alignment narrows their conceptual diversity. We close with seven implications for token-based systems. Language belongs at a model's boundary and in the shared codebook, as in the brain, not as its internal representation; the price of leaving the codebook inside is auditability.

Humans can learn and generalize novel concepts from sparse data because they express knowledge in rich structural formats. In this paper, we propose that programs are a strong candidate for universal representation of concepts. We review computational models of concept learning that use programs as their concept representation and evaluate their contribution toward a universal representational language.

Given various grammatical options, language users prefer the word order choice that reduces the overall length of syntactic dependencies, a principle known as dependency length minimization (DLM). The origins of this preference remain an open question, particularly whether it originates from constraints on efficient information processing. Computational simulations provide a powerful approach to identifying the factors influencing the emergence of linguistic phenomena. However, previous simulations of DLM have not examined realistic interaction contexts and have produced mixed results. The present study investigates the emergence of DLM in artificial languages using a recently proposed language learning and communication framework based on recurrent neural networks (RNNs). In this framework, agents are trained to speak and interpret artificial languages and then use these languages to communicate. Using this framework, we study the impact of several factors related to processing limitations in a communicative setting, such as noise during listening, limited speaker capacity, and incremental sentence processing. Our results reveal a complex interplay among these factors in shaping word order preferences in neural agents. Specifically, in the full meaning space, agents regularize toward a single dominant word order, while in the half meaning space they show a short-before-long preference that only aligns with DLM in verb-initial languages. A consistent DLM preference emerges only when agents are subject to incremental processing pressure. These findings suggest that limitations in human cognitive processing may indeed play a role in shaping DLM. Our findings provide insights into the conditions under which neural models replicate human-like preferences and highlight the challenges of designing emergent communication models that capture human cognitive biases in language processing.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to edit existing code, but correctness alone is not enough: useful repairs should also be minimal, reviewable, and faithful to the original implementation. We study over-editing, the tendency of a model to rewrite code beyond what is required to fix a bug. We construct an evaluation framework from 400 BigCodeBench problems by injecting controlled AST-level corruptions into reference solutions, giving each repair task a known minimal patch. Across frontier LLMs, over-editing is widespread even among strong models like GPT-5.5: high Pass@1 can coexist with unnecessarily large edits and added cognitive complexity. A preservation instruction substantially reduces this behavior, lowering average excess Levenshtein distance from 0.195 to 0.131, reducing added cognitive complexity by 26.6%, and increasing Pass@1 by 2.3 points. However, these gains do not simply follow from a larger reasoning budget or larger models. We next ask whether minimal editing can be learned directly during post-training. We observe that supervised fine-tuning overfits to seen corruption patterns, whereas reinforcement learning gives the best out-of-domain edit-fidelity and performance-retention trade-off. These results position edit fidelity as a distinct axis of code-repair quality and show that it can be measured and learned.

This paper presents an integrated approach to modeling human competencies by combining the theoretical foundations of cognitive architectures with principles from Human Factors Ergonomics (HFE). Through a comparative analysis of established cognitive models-SOAR, ACT-R, LIDA, and COCOM-we synthesize a tailored architecture designed to address the complexities of human-machine interaction (HMI) in dynamic environments. By contextualizing this model within ergonomic frameworks, we elucidate the mechanisms underlying decision-making, skill acquisition, and adaptive behavior, bridging the gap between cognitive theory and applied system design. Our framework is empirically grounded in industrial robotics applications, where operator expertise, normative knowledge, and real-time feedback loops are critical. The proposed architecture not only enhances the cognitive alignment of HMI systems but also provides a scalable methodology for designing intelligent, human-centered interfaces in high-stakes environments. This work advances both the theoretical understanding of human competencies and the practical implementation of adaptive, ergonomically optimized systems.

Reliability claims about agentic systems implicitly locate each property somewhere: in the model, or in the machinery around it. We built a system where that location is an experimental question. The subject is a persistent simulated settlement whose authoritative append-only ledger adjudicates every attempted act against world state; accepted history is the only reality. Mind, institution and world were separated before any experiment. Holding cognition fixed, we intervened on the institution's epistemic mechanisms (evidence provenance, belief availability, physical-evidence legibility); preregistered experiments refuted our central prediction twice, in opposite directions. A registered falsifier then supplied the input the geometry had denied the belief channel, a staged veridical first-hand witness, and its marginal value, non-positive throughout the witness-free phases, turned positive: 9 of 11 seeds, zero added false attribution. Holding institutional enforcement fixed, we intervened on cognition four ways: ablating the native minds' machinery, killing and resetting them mid-task, substituting a frozen frontier-LLM panel for the entire native cognition, and corrupting beliefs with trusted false testimony. Behaviour changed dramatically: one falsehood cost each trusting run about 900 futile actions and the distrusting arm none. Five pre-declared properties did not move in any tested trajectory: accepted reality stayed singular, invalid attempts were refused with typed reasons, duties outlived their processes, no work was accepted twice, and no false completion was ever accepted (2,581 substituted-panel claims, none false). Our claim is limited to this setting: measured behavioural properties were separable from substantial changes to cognition, established by intervention. One designed world, not a population of institutions; no test of an agent optimising against the institution.

How humans grow and maintain abstract knowledge from the sparse, streaming noisy data of experience is a longstanding challenge in cognitive science. Any computational account must satisfy at least three desiderata: It must be (1) data-efficient and compute-efficient, (2) capture gradations of uncertainty to support intelligent inquiry and information gathering, and (3) be flexible enough to mentally represent the endless range of concepts people can learn and think about. Here we introduce a computational model that captures these three properties, by encoding symbolic knowledge as mental programs that combine natural language with source code, and sequentially inferring mental programs using LLM-guided Bayesian learning algorithms. Across a range of behavioral studies this model successfully reproduces quantitative signatures of human inductive learning and active inquiry, such as anchoring, garden-pathing, and other effects. In contrast, pure LLMs and classic Bayesian models either fail at the underlying task, or do not reproduce human behavior, or succeed only at exorbitant computational cost. These results suggest that one way humans continually grow their knowledge is by mentally representing many hypotheses spanning language-like and program-like representations, then revising those hypotheses to approximate Bayesian updates, while a bottom-up neural mechanism (an LLM) makes inference both tractable and learnable.

Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promises to provide the right support at the right time, yet existing proactive tools largely focus on generic textual assistance, such as autocomplete. This paper studies the design space of proactive thought partners: AI agents that proactively offer customizable, higher-level cognitive support during writing. We instantiated this concept in a technology probe and deployed it with 16 participants for one week. The probe allows users to create partners by configuring their roles and proactivity. As users write, relevant partners take the initiative at appropriate moments to offer suggestions. Our findings show that participants configured proactive support through prospective planning, used suggestions for both idea generation and self-monitoring, and valued lightweight visual representations alongside non-directive rhetorical framing for non-intrusive interventions. We derive implications for designing proactive writing assistants around customization, timing, engagement, and representation.

Q-matrices play a central role in cognitive diagnosis within educational data mining (EDM), specifying which latent skills each assessment item requires. Data-driven Q-matrix estimation remains challenging when assessments involve many correlated skills and when real response patterns depart from idealized generative assumptions. We introduce a novel quantum sparse autoencoder (QSAE) for Q-matrix estimation, which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first application of quantum machine learning (QML) to cognitive diagnosis. Overall, the QSAE embeds each student's binary response vector into a quantum circuit using an encoder, compresses it into a sparse latent representation, and maps that representation to the Q-matrix. We benchmark the QSAE against a classical autoencoder (CAE) across 60 simulated datasets and 9 real-world assessment datasets. The results reveal complementary strengths. Although the CAE partially achieves higher average accuracy under several simulation conditions, the QSAE is substantially more stable across replications, exhibiting lower variance in 49 of the 60 conditions. Moreover, on real assessment data, the QSAE outperforms the CAE on 6 of the 9 datasets. These findings suggest that the principal advancement of QML in this setting is not universal accuracy improvement, but enhanced robustness and capability to explore latent-structure complexity in real datasets.

With the development of artificial intelligence (AI), the landscape of meta-ethics, which has largely centred on human ethics, faces pressures that may significantly reconfigure it. In particular, if future AI systems were to exhibit sufficiently integrated capacities for moral reasoning, moral intentionality, and moral reflection, novel meta-ethical questions would arise concerning what I call "AI's own ethics", as distinct from ethical principles merely imposed on AI by human designers. This paper offers a conditional and methodological framework for identifying the questions that would emerge if such AI systems were to arise. On that basis, the paper distinguishes four domains of meta-ethical inquiry in the era of AI: questions about the nature of human ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the human perspective; questions about the nature of human ethics from the AI perspective; and questions about the nature of AI's own ethics from the AI perspective. The paper then considers how some existing mainstream meta-ethical theories (such as cognitivism and non-cognitivism, error theory and success theory, relativism, and objective realism) might illuminate these domains, while arguing that many familiar human-centred formulations of those theories may not transfer straightforwardly to AI cases without substantial revision. The overall conclusion is that the emergence of AI's own ethics would place significant pressure on current frameworks and may require substantial refinement, reconstruction, or reconceptualisation.

Robotic systems are deeply embedded in both industry and everyday life, where they are expected to act with speed, precision, and reliability. Classical control and planning methods have long delivered strong guarantees, but often at the cost of computational efficiency and adaptability. More recently, learning-based approaches have shown promise in overcoming these limitations, enabling agents to leverage experience to accelerate decision-making and address previously intractable problems. In this work, we bridge these two approaches through a neuro-symbolic perspective on nonlinear motion planning. Inspired by the Thinking Fast and Slow paradigm, we introduce a dual-process architecture that combines the strengths of robust reasoning and learning. Our framework integrates state-of-the-art symbolic solvers as a System-2'' component with experience-driven System-1'' modules. A metacognitive controller dynamically orchestrates their interaction, selecting when to rely on fast intuition versus slower, more precise reasoning. By evaluating the framework across diverse nonlinear benchmark environments, we demonstrate that this architecture yields consistent gains in planning efficiency, accuracy, and generalization, while promoting reuse across tasks. The results suggest that tightly coupling learning with structured reasoning offers a scalable path toward more capable and adaptive robotic systems.

Large language models exhibit a modular internal organization that mirrors well-studied functional networks of the human brain, but how this organization forms during training is unknown: prior work has characterized finished models, not the formation process. We track formation step by step: we train a Pythia-410M model from scratch (two trajectories, bf16 and fp32) and run attribution patching at every step, alongside probes for gradient norms, effective updates, weight norms, and first-order loss decomposition across 14 tasks in four cognitive domains. Three findings. First, the modular map is pre-carved: before any learning, the dominant task pair already overlaps at ~3.6x the attribution substrate (a task-independent baseline), and its layer-0 concentration is an architecture-level constant on this model family. Second, the partition locks in through two sharp jumps whose amplitudes do not track the learning-rate schedule (the second reaching 20.4 sigma quiet-window / 6.2 sigma global), accompanied by gradient-level relative deprivation--winners receive 2.25->2.73x the loser's gradient supply, 9.5-11.5 standard deviations below a random control--that does not propagate to updates or weights. Third, deviation from the substrate appears only in the domain being learned, consistent with the hypothesis that modularity tracks learning. We close by separating the feature-level account we can defend from the mechanistic questions we cannot, and we pre-register the scale-threshold hypothesis behind our ongoing 2.8B experiments.

Whether large language models (LLMs) can control their own internal representations matters for both machine metacognition and AI safety. A recent study applied neurofeedback to LLMs and claimed that they can control their internal representations. However, the reported control may rely on superficial mechanisms rather than genuine internal access because the control targets in that study are not privileged, meaning that a third party can infer them from the prompt. We redesign the neurofeedback paradigm for LLMs so that the control target satisfies the privileged access requirement, which is closer to neurofeedback experiments in human cognitive neuroscience. Under this stricter setting, the models do not demonstrate reliable control over privileged internal representations, suggesting that previously reported control cannot exclude the possibility that it relies on superficial mechanisms. Our results indicate that rigorous assessments of metacognition in LLMs require evaluation methods that demand privileged access.

Creative generation tasks, such as narrative writing and scientific ideation, demand both high-quality outputs and distinct responses across independent runs to maximize exploration. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has shown strong quality gains on factual and reasoning tasks, making it a natural candidate for creative generation. However, we find its convergence-driven design actively suppresses output diversity across independent runs, creating an inherent trade-off with creative tasks. We theoretically show that preserving diversity among agents within each debate session is a necessary condition for achieving diverse outputs across independent runs. Building on this finding, we propose Creative-MAD, which introduces two synergistic interventions to sustain agent divergence. Specifically, Cognitive Lens Assignment counters identity drift by anchoring each agent to a distinct and persistent cognitive mode, while Embedding-based Peer Selection counters majority pull by limiting each agent's context to its most semantically distant peers. Experiments across four creative benchmarks demonstrate that Creative-MAD significantly enhances both lexical and semantic diversity while maintaining MAD's output quality.

Does unrestricted AI access bypass the cognitive effort required for learning, or does it streamline knowledge acquisition? This paper reports on a study where we compare three designs for user-AI interaction in a learning context: (1) an unrestricted conversational bot like ChatGPT, (2) a pedagogically constrained bot that guides through hints without giving final answers, which we refer to as the Socratic mode; and (3) a non-conversational adaptive tutoring system that adjusts difficulty in real-time based on the user's cognitive engagement derived from the brain signals. Fifty study participants were tasked with learning about nuclear safety protocols, a domain chosen for its zero-prior knowledge baseline. The participants progressed through an instructional video, a pre-test, an AI-driven assessment phase, which varied in the three conditions, and an immediate post-test. The nature of the questions centered primarily on factual knowledge acquisition, but it still required participants to have a global understanding of the concepts in order to answer the questions correctly. A Muse headband was used to derive the cognitive engagement of all users in all conditions. The unrestricted chatbot produced higher learning gains (delta) than both constrained modes (p < .03, d > 0.80), while the adaptive condition generated significantly higher EEG engagement (p = .018). The cluster analysis of chatbot usage and discussion patterns by users showed that most participants in the unrestricted-mode adopted a direct answer-retrieval strategy, while participants in the Socratic-mode initially attempted to reason through the hints before progressively disengaging. Consequently, this also suggests that the success of the unrestricted AI is not an evidence of deeper learning, but rather a result of the immediate post-test evaluation after the training phase.

Large language models can support writing, but existing tools require users to explicitly articulate prompts-particularly burdensome in creative writing, where intentions are often ambiguous. Proactive support that infers users' needs from writing interactions could alleviate this burden, but raises two challenges: determining what support to provide and when to intervene. This work focuses on the former. We hypothesize that Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing-which characterizes writing through six cognitive processes-offers an interpretable bridge between observable writing behavior and appropriate support types. Through a formative study and literature review, we identify 14 writing support types associated with these cognitive processes, along with characteristic interaction behaviors linked to each process. We then instantiate this framework in AToM CoWriter, which infers support needs from writing interactions and document context. Two within-subjects studies (N = 21) provide initial evidence that this approach improves expressiveness and idea exploration, and that cognitive process inference increases engagement with proactive suggestions. These findings suggest that cognitive processes can provide a promising basis for support selection in proactive writing systems.

Large language models can generate fluent clinical case vignettes, but fluency alone does not ensure fidelity to a specifiable clinical structure. We introduce FORMA, a theory-grounded framework that compiles a cognitive model of a disorder into a directed weighted graph, samples a person-specific configuration of that graph, and validates whether the generated vignette preserves the specified components and causal links. We instantiate FORMA on Posttraumatic Stress Disorder using the Ehlers and Clark cognitive model, generating 16,500 vignettes across 500 personas, 11 generation models, and three ablation conditions. Evaluation combines an external edge-recovery probe, two clinical experts, a scaled LLM judge, and a clinician user study with 100 licensed practitioners. The cognitive graph is recoverable from full-condition vignettes (MCC = +0.41, AUC = 0.70) but not from zero-shot generation (MCC = +0.01, AUC = 0.50). Experts rate full vignettes substantially higher than zero-shot alternatives, and clinicians perceive them to be human-written 85% of the time, compared with 22% for zero-shot. FORMA also reduces demographic disparity in perceived quality by 1.5-7x. These results show that cognitive formulation can serve as an auditable specification for scalable synthetic clinical text generation. A repository with the data and code is available online: https://github.com/Amit-Oren/FORMA.

Coding agents increase development velocity but also technical debt. Prior work reports only average effects across adopters, hiding wide differences between teams. We introduce RAMP (Repository AI Maturity Profile), a four-level cumulative maturity model grounded in version-controlled artifacts that teams commit to configure AI tools. RAMP runs from behavioral rules and coding standards through named agent definitions to multi-agent orchestration, with observed practice concentrated in the first three levels. Across 441 repositories the levels behave as a cumulative scale, and independent human annotation reproduces RAMP's repository-level labels on 97% of a held-out sample. Adoption is cumulative, forward-only, and set-and-forget: 73.8% of artifacts are committed once and never modified. Re-estimating an existing agent-adoption panel within each stratum, agents accelerate development regardless of maturity (28-38% more commits), but quality diverges: among agent-first repositories, where the contrast is identified, those without committed AI configuration show roughly twice the increase in cognitive complexity (+53% versus +27%) and 1.7x the increase in static-analysis warnings. Because maturity is observational, correlated engineering discipline or model capability may explain part of the gap; we present these findings as hypothesis-generating and release RAMP as a reusable instrument.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can integrate long visual histories and infer behavior from a few examples, yet vision-language-action models rarely use this capacity as episode memory. Instead of a purpose-built memory module, PONDERPOUNCE reuses an MLLM's native causal context. PONDER, a pretrained System 2 MLLM, integrates episode history and demonstrations to produce continuous cognition. POUNCE, a System 1 action model, asynchronously conditions control on the newest cognition and its age. Both are jointly trained end to end without separate bridge pretraining. Optimized per-call inference on an H100 achieves p50 latencies of 78 ms for cognition-only refresh and 25 ms for action-model invocation. On RoboMME, PONDERPOUNCE achieves 60.83% success at the base data scale and 75.54% with 9x data, compared with 44.51% and 57.88% for FrameSamp+Modul. At base scale, scaling PONDER from 0.8B to 9B adds 6.71 percentage points with the POUNCE architecture unchanged. A separately trained 9B PONDER without execution history achieves only 26.21% under matched supervision. PONDERPOUNCE also achieves 12.5% success on RoboCasa-DC and demonstrates real-world applicability on four tasks under asynchronous execution, with 60.98% mean success versus 40.67% for FrameSamp+Modul.

AI agents pose significant risks as they are granted increasing autonomy. A commonly proposed solution is human oversight and keeping a ''human in the loop'', but this is not a simple solution: Not only do current approaches to AI agent design impede effective human oversight, but the cognitive capacities required for it are also themselves degraded by extended use of AI systems. This position paper argues that current approaches to the development and deployment of AI agent systems do not support effective human oversight -- they contribute to its degradation. To address this, a top priority in the advancement of AI agents should be supporting the situated goals and cognitive requirements of effective human oversight, treating the human needs of overseers at the same level of importance as AI agent capability. To put this idea into practice, we connect work on automation and human-computer interaction to AI agent processes, outlining design-level affordances and organizational protocols that (1) support overseers in exercising critical judgement and (2) counteract the skill atrophy that arises from extended use of automation. We urge developers and deployers to adopt these or similar approaches. Without explicit support for the cognitive demands of effective human-agent interaction, AI agent systems will continue to passively incentivize the degradation of the very human skills they rely on.

Intelligence is constituted by \textit{process} (iterative activity through which output emerges), not in the output itself. Generative AI (GenAI) is trained on \textit{traces} (textual and visual residues of human cognitive processes), reproducing samples from a distribution of those traces. Its outputs resemble reasoning, problem-solving, and creativity, yet the activity that produces such outputs in humans remains largely absent. Current GenAI is, therefore, weakly equivalent to the cognition it imitates, matching outputs while process stays absent or opaque. The cognitive sciences have long distinguished between weak and strong equivalence. Here, we define \textit{strong} equivalence across seven process features, assessable against human and machine cognition. Our process-based account addresses a symmetric risk: GenAI tools that outsource a person's generative processes may leave critical capacities unbuilt. We specify design principles for GenAI that instantiate more process and preserve rather than erode human judgment and creativity, and outline process audits that make strong equivalence testable.

Self-supervised learning (SSL) speech representations achieve strong performance for Parkinson's disease (PD) detection within individual corpora. However, it remains unclear whether these models capture disease-related characteristics or exploit dataset-specific confounds, particularly since most SSL backbones are pretrained exclusively on healthy speech. To investigate this question, we perform a layer-wise analysis of nine SSL speech backbones using a low-capacity logistic regression probe across three languages. We structure the evaluation as multiple scenarios that progressively introduce distribution shifts in participant identity, recording conditions, language, and pathology. Our results reveal two key findings. First, layer selection is highly corpus-dependent: the optimal representation layer is determined primarily by the source dataset rather than by the SSL architecture itself. Second, the transferred discriminative signal lacks pathological specificity: classifiers trained to detect PD assign similarly high probabilities to both PD and dementia speech in the target corpus. These results highlight critical limitations that must be addressed before speech-based pathology recognition models can be reliably deployed in clinical settings.

Embodied intelligent virtual agents are expected to operate as persistent, adaptive, and context-aware entities within complex virtual and Metaverse worlds. However, implementing cognitively capable agents in such environments is conceptually and technologically challenging. Among a range of blueprints and development approaches, the Cognitive Embodied Agent Architecture (CEAA) has been developed as an implementation-oriented framework for architecting components of perception, memory, reasoning, planning, and embodied action. Considering the recent advances in edge computing and generative AI language models, this paper explores the use of Small Language Models (SLMs) to support edge-based operation of selected CEAA components, focusing on "Think" and "Memory" as processes central to cognitive orchestration and persistence of virtual agents in interactive virtual worlds. An edge-based virtual agent gateway system was developed and evaluated on an NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX using Qwen2.5 models of different sizes, exploring the system's capability to process service requests and handle memory-driven conversations. A series of simulation experiments evaluated routing accuracy, memory-read performance, and latency, demonstrating an SLM-driven prototype agent system that partially implements selected CEAA processes to support the development of embodied agents whose cognitive "brain" can operate efficiently and contextually for interactive experiences in immersive virtual worlds.

Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have led to substantial progress in video understanding, accompanied by a growing number of long video benchmarks. However, existing benchmarks rely predominantly on web-sourced videos that lack inter-clip spatiotemporal continuity, making it difficult to assess whether models can maintain consistent memory across days or weeks of real-world experience. We introduce EgoMonth, the first month-level egocentric video understanding benchmark. EgoMonth comprises over 300 hours of first-person daily-life recordings from 20 participants spanning 20 to 120 days, paired with 1,443 human-crafted multiple-choice question-answer pairs. We design a cognitively grounded 14-task evaluation framework organized into three hierarchical cognitive levels: Schema Consolidation, Episodic Indexing, and Cascading Reasoning. Evaluation of state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source MLLMs reveals that even the best-performing model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, achieves only 71.8% macro-average accuracy, remaining 22.4 percentage points below the corrected human baseline of 94.2%. Several models perform near or below the 25% chance level on tasks such as Route Reasoning, Cross-view Spatial Reasoning, and Direction Judgement, while even the strongest closed-source model remains substantially below human performance. These results indicate that current MLLMs function as lossy summarizers rather than faithful memorizers, highlighting the need for architectures with genuine long-term spatiotemporal memory.

Congruency effects, observed in conflict tasks such as Stroop and flanker tasks, have been investigated for nearly a century in psychology and neuroscience, but their mechanistic basis is not fully understood. We introduce a verbal-only LLM conflict task in which a prompt stem elicits a default same-color completion and an explicit rule either agrees with (congruent condition) or conflicts with (incongruent condition) the completion. Gemma-2-2B and six Pythia models ranging from 410M to 12B parameters showed strong default same-color tendencies, and six of seven models showed strong congruency effects. Using causal attribution analysis, attention analysis, and attention ablations, we identified distinct processing pathways in these LLMs: a pathway involving short-range attention to a superficial color cue that is preferentially activated in the congruent condition, and a pathway involving long-range attention to the rule prefix that is preferentially activated in the incongruent condition. Fine-tuning that strengthened the default same-color tendency had divergent effects on task conditions, reducing incongruent performance while increasing congruent performance. In contrast, increasing rule set size selectively impaired incongruent performance. These converging findings support an account in which congruency effects in this task arise from competition between an in-weight default mapping and an in-context rule-based mapping. More broadly, our findings illustrate how LLMs can serve as model systems for mechanistic analysis of competition between default and rule-governed response tendencies within a single learned network.

Large language models increasingly rely on external tools to access up-to-date information, perform computation, and interact with the outside world. For autoregressive models, tool use naturally fits the generation process: the model emits a tool call, waits for the result, and then continues generating. Diffusion language models (dLLMs), however, reason by repeatedly refining many parts of their output in parallel, making this stop-and-resume interaction pattern unnecessarily restrictive. It can force tool decisions before the model's reasoning has stabilized, delay useful observations until a discrete call finishes, and introduce redundant refinement and tool execution, potentially hurting both task accuracy and inference efficiency. We introduce Continuous Interaction Diffusion (CID), a diffusion-native model--runtime architecture that integrates tool interaction into iterative denoising. CID separates a model-read-only fact channel, a thought channel represented by a Typed Cognitive Tensor, and a display channel. Information needs can emerge before a textual or JSON call is fully serialized, allowing perceptual bindings to launch external reads while denoising continues. Returned results are projected into the evolving thought state and can revise earlier cognition and display regions. Persistent bindings reuse static results without repeated external execution and refresh changing sources when needed. CID is designed to expose evidence earlier, overlap tool latency with model computation, reduce duplicate external work, and preserve useful computation after new evidence arrives. We formalize the architecture, runtime, and training objectives, and define an evaluation protocol for task quality and end-to-end efficiency. This first paper focuses on read-only tools and makes no empirical performance claims.

The development of embodied Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVAs) that have cognitive capabilities in real-time interactive virtual environments remains a challenge, even with today's advancements in technology. Existing architectures are often focused on either the implementation of low-level reactive control systems that are constrained by commercial game engines, or high-level representations of reasoning models that can be difficult to implement in virtual worlds. This paper builds on that notion and proposes a modular cognitive architecture for deploying embodied IVAs. This architecture builds on existing, pre-established frameworks such as the Sense-Think-Act paradigm and the Belief-Desire-Intention cognitive model, among others, and aims to provide a reusable implementation-oriented framework as a template for deploying IVA "brains" in interactive 3D computing systems. The proposed architecture contributes by providing a modular, implementation-oriented framework for the deployment of embodied, cognitive-capable IVAs and bridges the gap between high-level agent reasoning models with real-time embodied execution, for scalable, adaptive, and explainable agents in complex interactive virtual environments.

UAV vision-language navigation (UAV-VLN) focuses on enabling an aerial agent to follow natural-language instructions in open 3D environments from egocentric visual observations. Current approaches suffer from three coupled issues: weak grounding of instruction-relevant landmarks in visual observations, insufficient exploitation of long-horizon history, and unstable decisions under local traps or repeated exploration. To address these issues, we propose a unified semantic-to-decision framework. First, we present an instruction-grounded semantic enhancement module that injects object-level semantics and relative spatial cues into the current observation state. Subsequently, we develop a relevance-aware dynamic temporal aggregation strategy that reweights the full history buffer while converting a few high-relevance frames into structured landmark prompts for the decoder. Finally, we devise a topology-aware decision method that combines local-optimum cognition with group-relative policy optimization under progress, goal, semantic, and path-compliance rewards. Experiments on the widely used AerialVLN and OpenFly benchmarks clearly demonstrate that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Inverse decision modeling infers latent properties of decision processes from observed behavior, but existing formulations rely primarily on action trajectories. In verbalized cognitive tasks, task execution also produces response dynamics that action-only formulations leave unmodeled, such as verbal production, interaction, and hesitation. We propose a factorized inverse decision model (FIDM) that decomposes each individual's task-execution likelihood into an action factor and an effort factor, governed by separate individual-specific parameters. From raw verbal transcripts, a language model produces structured task-execution traces for factorized inference. On data from 400 older adults performing a grocery-shopping dialog task for cognitive screening, controlled recovery shows selective estimation of the intended factors, while matched semi-synthetic conditions show that FIDM preserves action-execution distinctions even when aggregate behavioral summaries are matched. Action evidence further localizes task-defined deviations across participants. In cognitive-status classification, FIDM provides information complementary to clinical scores, trajectory summaries, and frozen language representations, with consistent gains across all evaluated baselines in the binary setting.

Despite significant advances in instruction-following and auditory comprehension, the evaluation of Emotional Intelligence (EI) in Spoken Language Models (SLMs) remains confined to rudimentary paralinguistic perception, lacking a systematic, theory-driven cognitive framework. We introduce EmoSBench, the first comprehensive EI evaluation benchmark for SLMs constructed upon the four-branch theoretical model, covering Perceiving, Understanding, Using, and Managing Emotion across ten sub-tasks. Preliminary assessments on EmoSBench reveal a substantial gap: even leading proprietary models like GPT-4o-Audio achieve only 52.6%, significantly trailing human baselines. To bridge this gap, we develop EmoS, a specialized evaluator model optimized via Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). To facilitate its effective training, we curate EmoDialogue, a bilingual dataset providing necessary fine-grained supervision through response pairs with rigorously defined EI gradations. Concurrently, we introduce a reward mechanism integrating a Steep Exponential Accuracy Reward (SEAR) and a Rationale Fidelity Reward (RFR) to enforce precise ordinal scoring and valid reasoning. Experiments demonstrate that EmoS reaches 83.8% accuracy, approaching human-level performance. Furthermore, evaluations on authentic, unconstrained spoken interactions validate its robust real-world generalization, establishing a foundational framework for advancing emotionally intelligent dialogue systems.

Cognitive decision-making research depends on diverse scenarios with carefully controlled complexity, yet manual production is slow, inconsistent, and biased. We developed an automated pipeline that uses LLms to generate structured decision scenarios and validates their complexity through a composite framework rooted in established task-complexity theory. We evaluated 4,238 scenarios across multiple domains and complexity tiers. Measurement validation met rigorous psychometric standards. Agreement among five independent model families was nearly perfect, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a kappa of 0.971. Known-groups validity demonstrated large separation between tiers, with an eta-squared of 0.587 and all pairwise comparisons significant at p less than .001. Factor analysis revealed a dominant complexity construct, with loadings between 0.87 and 0.96 across three frameworks, while interactivity formed a weaker secondary dimension at 0.34. Discriminant validity was limited by a strong relationship between complexity and text length that persisted after controlling for tier, yielding a partial correlation of 0.86. This constrains construct purity but does not undermine the instrument's tier-grading function. Model analyses showed a negative association between throughput and schema pass rate (r = -0.967, p = .007, n = 5), suggesting a speed-quality trade-off, though largely driven by one high-throughput model. Llama 4 Maverick generated scenarios fastest at 134 per minute versus 25 for DeepSeek Chat V3.2, but underproduced complex-tier scenarios, whereas DeepSeek Chat V3.2 balanced domain coverage with high schema compliance. The system demonstrated strong psychometric properties, enabling reliable classification into Simple, Moderate, and Complex tiers and providing the measurement infrastructure needed for downstream cognitive assessment of AI systems

Tool-using large language model (LLM) agents are vulnerable to indirect prompt injection (IPI), in which malicious instructions embedded in external observations manipulate subsequent agent decisions and actions. Most existing adaptive attacks rely on repeatedly querying and refining against the target agent, whereas realistic attackers may have only a single opportunity to interact with an unknown target agent. We propose SAVOR (Strategy Abstraction Via Outcome-Conditioned Reflection), which shifts attack adaptation from test-time iteration to offline strategy distillation. SAVOR performs outcome-conditioned reflection over successful and failed trajectories collected from disjoint training environments, validates context-conditioned candidate strategies, and iteratively consolidates them into a reusable strategy memory. At test time, the frozen memory guides the generation of a single payload for each unseen target, requiring only one target-agent query and no target-agent feedback. Across two benchmarks and three victim models, SAVOR attains the highest average attack success rate in all six settings, leading the strongest prior attack by 2.5 to 11.8 points and the same injection channel without strategy learning by 23.1 points on Agent Security Bench, which holds out attacker tools, and 28.6 points on OpenClaw-IPI, an executable benchmark we introduce that holds out attack goals and verifies attacks through tool interactions and execution receipts. A memory learned under one defense also transfers to another.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) employing Chain-of-Thought (CoT) exhibit superior reasoning capabilities, the neural mechanisms distinguishing this explicit Thinking mode from direct answer generation (NoThinking mode) remain poorly understood. To deconstruct this cognitive process, we apply Top-K Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) to the intermediate representations of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B and examine the model's divergent behaviors across math-solving tasks of three distinct difficulty levels. Observationally, we identify a clear distinction in how the model functions under two reasoning modes: Thinking mode relies on sparse and high-intensity feature activations driving verbal deduction independent of problem complexity, whereas NoThinking mode exhibits an adaptive and diffuse pattern prioritizing symbolic manipulation. Causally, suppressing the three most active sparse features by Total Activation Volume reveals three principles: (i) reasoning and syntactic structure are tightly coupled, as interventions consistently degrade \LaTeX{} and boxed-solution formatting; (ii) Thinking responds to disruption with compensatory over-generation marked by increased metacognitive cues and repetitive, low-information continuations; and (iii) coherent CoT behavior depends on a fragile coordination among specialized features, yielding distinct failure modes under perturbation but a consistently impaired output structure.

Theory of Space framework (ToS) assesses the spatial understanding of curiosity-driven Vision-Language Models (VLMs) under partial observability. As AI techniques are increasingly applied to safety-critical scenarios, it is crucial to understand whether VLMs possess robust spatial memory and make reliable decisions. In this paper, we assess whether VLMs' decisions are based on physical evidence or are corrupted by visual-language biases, if their memory processes align with human cognitive patterns, and how they respond to environmental hazards. We extend the ToS framework into a safety-critical, goal-driven pipeline, named Explore, Map, Remember, and Decide (EMRD). We then quantify Exploration Competence (Explore) through metrics of environmental coverage and temporal efficiency, assess Spatial Fidelity (Map), evaluate, with a suite of psychological metrics, Memory Persistence (Remember), and measure, using focal-point metrics, Cognitive Decision-Making (Decide). Our results show that in terms of decision-making capabilities, VLMs frequently select evacuation points based on pre-trained textual priors while lacking the spatial grounding to justify their choices. We also show that spatial reasoning degrades in low-light conditions, but it is not affected by texture and colour tampering. Our findings suggest that VLM memory fundamentally diverges from human cognition, creating unpredictable risks of misalignment.

We propose IM-LEPP (Integrated Multimodal Latent Energy-based Predictive Processing), a hierarchical, energy-based model of multimodal cognition that extends a previously proposed single-modality model (LEPP) to integrate vision and language. Following the view that generative neural networks are effective theories of cognitive dynamics, analogous to how statistical mechanics relates to thermodynamics, IM-LEPP models cognition as latent states flowing through learned energy landscapes rather than as an account of neural circuitry. The architecture is a hub-and-spoke hierarchy, grounded in the controlled semantic cognition framework of Lambon Ralph et al., in which predictive-coding pipelines for visual objects, scenes, and linguistic units converge on a shared amodal hub modeled on the anterior temporal lobe. Each pipeline's own prediction is conditioned by, rather than overwritten by, the current hub state, preserving pipeline-specific identity while letting every prediction reflect the full multimodal context. We show this architecture gives a mechanistic account of attentional phenomena such as inattentional blindness and Necker-cube bistability, and that its structure recovers or motivates independently established findings in psycholinguistics, including surprisal theory, the N400/P600 ERP components, and garden-path reanalysis, alongside a falsifiable contrast with transformer language models on trajectory-sensitivity in next-word prediction. We also discuss data-efficient language acquisition relative to LLMs, outline a semantic/episodic memory subsystem, situate the model against predictive coding, the free-energy principle, JEPA, and Hierarchical Temporal Memory, and propose concrete experimental predictions to test its central claims Key Words: predictive processing; predictive coding; energy-based models; diffusion models; effective theory; computational neuroscience.

A host of recent studies have evaluated the cognitive and developmental alignment of Foundation Models (FMs). These investigations include evaluations of their correspondence to adult performance across a range of cognitive domains, as well as whether aspects of model training track children's cognitive development. However, using FMs as candidate cognitive models poses significant methodological and conceptual challenges. A key question underlies this effort: under what conditions does behavioral alignment justify treating FMs as explanatory models of cognition? In this paper, we articulate a four-stage inferential framework for evaluating FMs as cognitive and developmental models: adapting human experimental tasks to model-compatible formats, specifying linking hypotheses that map model outputs to human measures, evaluating behavioral correspondence, and comparing across candidate models or manipulations. We clarify the role of linking hypotheses in mapping model outputs to human behavioral measures, identify challenges that constrain alignment claims, and propose principles for theory-driven and comparative evaluation. Throughout, we argue that behavioral fit alone is insufficient. Alignment becomes scientifically meaningful only when embedded within explicit theoretical commitments, theory-diagnostic tasks, and systematic contrastive evaluation across candidate models.

Human-like cognition does not select past experience by topical similarity alone: affective significance and unresolved conflict also shape what becomes accessible. We present PsychoAgent, a cognitive architecture for LLM agents that separates factual and affective memory and integrates both through a conflict-aware executive controller. Affective memories are first filtered by semantic relevance and then re-ranked by salience, preserving topical fit while allowing emotionally important traces to enter the prompt. Across three controlled conflict scenarios, the full architecture retrieved more conflict-critical memories than semantic-affective and single-memory RAG baselines (0.933 vs. 0.500 and 0.667), with a small semantic-similarity cost. Five blinded raters evaluated 27 outputs. After within-rater standardization, the full architecture had the highest overall mean (+0.22 SD), but corrected pairwise differences were not significant. A three-day illustrative trace further shows persistent affect, offline memory recombination, and selective memory reweighting. The findings support affect-sensitive retrieval as an inspectable mechanism for modeling human-like conflict effects in LLM agents.