Cognitive Science

Modern machine learning systems demand extensive datasets for visual recognition. Conversely, humans learn with high efficiency despite severe data limitations, often by acquiring broad categorical structures before refining finer distinctions. Inspired by this contrast, we introduce SCALA (Scaffolded Cognitive Architecture for Learning under limited dAta), a hierarchical learning framework grounded in cognitive psychology that guides models from coarse conceptual structures to fine-grained recognition. Our model exhibits human-like cognitive selectivity by effectively prioritizing task-relevant features while suppressing background distractors, a mechanism that induces a fundamental shift in representation learning. This shift is characterized by accelerated cluster formation, reduced intra-class dispersion, and enhanced semantic separability. Empirically, SCALA achieves significant accuracy improvements under severe data scarcity. Furthermore, this hierarchical scaffolding promotes robust generalization to unseen classes and accelerates the acquisition of novel categories. Collectively, our results establish SCALA as a powerful framework for achieving human-level sample efficiency and resilient category generalization in data-constrained environments.

The pursuit of self-evolving AI raises a critical question: when is autonomous self-improvement sustainable rather than degenerative? Drawing an analogy to von Neumann's complexity threshold for self-reproducing automata, we argue that sustainable recursive self-improvement in Large Language Models (LLMs) requires a functional analogue: introspection -- the system's capacity to simulate its own operations and target modifications. Grounded in Kleene's Second Recursion Theorem, we demonstrate the theoretical existence of such introspective programs. However, an empirical review reveals that while current LLMs exhibit quasi-introspection (e.g., partial metacognition), they fall short of true introspection due to structural bottlenecks: a lack of complete self-access, the feedforward nature of the Transformer, and computational class constraints that prevent fixed-point iteration. We conclude by outlining architectural paths to cross this complexity threshold and discussing the associated safety implications.

Whether pairing people with AI helps or hurts is usually reported as a single average effect. Using a real-money prediction market (Polymarket) as an objective, externally resolved benchmark, this pilot shows that the value of human-AI collaboration depends on a specific, measurable form of human capital. Analyzed at the level of the individual forecaster, hybrid performance is trimodal: most people either deferred to the model (matching it) or used it to rubber-stamp a prior guess (performing worse than the model alone), while a minority engaged in genuine complementary reasoning and reached accuracy matching or even exceeding (i.e., lower error than) the market itself. Collaborative traits (perspective-taking, intellectual humility, and curiosity) rather than raw cognitive ability or model benchmarks, distinguished who reached that mode. The results are preliminary but statistically robust, and motivate a pre-registered replication now in preparation.

Scalable and reliable grading of command-line examinations remains a challenge in computing education, where rising enrolments make manual marking difficult and rule-based autograders cannot handle partial credit, equivalent solutions, or syntactic variation. This paper evaluates whether four frontier Large Language Models (GPT, Claude Opus, Gemini, and GLM) can approximate expert judgment when grading short Linux/bash command responses. The study adopts a four-level cognitive taxonomy that combines cognitive complexity and operational impact, ranging from information retrieval (L1) and basic file manipulation (L2) to structural operations (L3) and advanced system management (L4). The models were tested with two prompt variants, a minimal baseline and a rubric-enhanced version, on 1200 real responses from second-year Computer Engineering students independently graded by three expert instructors. Gemini~3.0 Pro with rubric-guided prompting achieved the highest human-AI agreement (ICC(3,1) = 0.888, MAE = 0.10, Bland-Altman bias = -0.014). Agreement declined consistently as taxonomy level increased, with the largest discrepancies at higher levels. Across all models, rubric quality had a larger effect than provider choice, with structured prompts consistently improving agreement. These results show that question complexity is a reliable predictor of the difficulty LLMs face in grading accurately, and they establish a principled, taxonomy-based framework for determining which questions are suitable for AI-assisted grading and which require human review, while also providing a transferable evaluation protocol and prompt templates.

Research in the social sciences has shown that there are gender differences in the selection of research methods, with women often opting for qualitative methods while men prefer quantitative methods. However, it is important to consider that research methods are generally chosen based on the research topic. To figure out the influence of gender on research method selection, a study was conducted in the field of Library and Information Science, using a more fine-grained method classification system and an automatic classification model called CogFT, which is based on full-text cognition. The findings showed that women tend to use Interview while men prefer Theoretical approach, across a range of topics. The study offers insights into the specific research design processes that contribute to gender differences in method selection and suggests ways to promoting gender inclusivity and equality in academia by considering research method use and guidance.

Open-response evaluation provides stronger clinical validity than multiple-choice benchmarks but creates a scoring bottleneck that motivates automated LLM-asa-Judge approaches. Whether such evaluators replicate clinical calibration and caution, however, remains untested. We introduce MedQADE, the first standardised open-response clinical benchmark for German, a major clinical language lacking native evaluation infrastructure, comprising 3,800 items annotated by ten practising physicians and nine Large Language Model (LLM) evaluators. The top-performing evaluator model, Gemini 3 Flash, reached alignment consistent with the physician ceiling (\k{appa} = 0.694 vs. \k{appa} = 0.709), though wide confidence intervals limit interpretation. Despite this statistical alignment, automated evaluators exhibited near-absent clinical metacognition: physicians scaled abstention with item difficulty, while frontier models assigned definitive scores in every case. We additionally quantified systematic lineage-dependent biases, where models preferentially scored architectural siblings, an effect independent of language. These results show that statistical alignment does not ensure clinical caution, and that evaluator independence requires explicit verification.

The research proposes a multilayer Q-matrix-embedded neural network for cognitive diagnosis (M-QCDNet), which integrates the structural interpretability of cognitive diagnostic models (CDMs) with the deep learning neural network (NN). M-QCDNet structures the item-skill relationship using the Q-matrix as a structural prior, ensuring latent mastery profiles remain interpretable and consistent with cognitive theory, followed by the proposed loss function with an L2 penalty to penalize skills not aligned with the Q-matrix and to balance predictive performance and structural alignment. Corresponding evaluation matrices, the interpretable alignment-based metrics that quantify the degree to which predicted skill activations correspond to item-level skills, were further developed. M-QCDNet offers practical benefits for classroom practice, enabling early detection of learning difficulties and supporting mastery-based interventions. By embedding diagnostic validity into model design, M-QCDNet bridges psychometric transparency and neural flexibility, advancing interpretable, fair, and actionable AI for cognitive diagnostics.

This paper takes issue with the recent themes of both the RO-MAN and the HRI conferences for their portrayal of a future human-robot society as inevitable. The focus is on discussing how such statements ultimately shape research. By treating a future human-robot society as a fait accompli, license is given for user studies to imagine any scenario they like, no matter whether it has any ecological relevance, and to emphasise the scenario design over actually creating robot abilities needed to fullfill the imagined role. Meanwhile, research that focusses on actual societal needs, without assuming that robots are a solution, is deprioritised, as is technical development, in particular with respect to abilities that are necessary to enable robots that function as social agents rather than a mere automation of tasks. A frame that simply assumes a robot future not only detracts from scientific advancement in favour of a techno-solutionism we ought to resist, it is also self-defeating as it risks stifling the research needed to bring it about. We should therefore reject attempts to frame and promote the field in terms of the inevitable social robot and instead focus on one that facilitates advances in the field regardless of what the future holds. This paper suggests that a renewed focus on cognitive mechanisms necessary for the "I" in HRI would be a good starting point.

As computing education expands beyond traditional programming into operational domains such as systems administration and command-line environments, existing pedagogical frameworks struggle to capture a dimension that is critical in these contexts: the real-world consequences of learner actions. Existing cognitive taxonomies classify learning objectives by mental operations but do not account for system impact, leaving a critical gap in command-line education where conceptually simple commands can have severe consequences. This work presents CogTax, a four-level cognitive taxonomy that integrates two dimensions: cognitive complexity, derived from Bloom's Revised Taxonomy, and operational impact, which distinguishes observational, reversible, structural, and administrative operations. The four progressive levels range from safe read-only inspection to advanced system management requiring integration of multiple abstract models. Then, the taxonomy level is defined as the maximum of these dimensions, ensuring that both conceptual understanding and operational awareness are addressed. CogTax gives instructors a principled framework for sequencing course material and calibrating assessment difficulty, and gives students an explicit reference for self-assessment and gap identification. To demonstrate that taxonomy levels are automatically assignable, making the framework scalable without manual expert annotation, a classifier that combines syntactic representations derived from abstract syntax trees with semantic embeddings is trained. Evaluated on 585 expert-annotated Linux/bash commands, this combined approach achieves 89% accuracy, outperforming either representation alone, and demonstrates cross-language extensibility through structural equivalences across command languages.

Metacognition is a critical component of intelligence that describes the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes. Yet LLMs exhibit systemic deficiencies in key metacognitive faculties: they hallucinate with high confidence, fail to recognize knowledge boundaries, and misrepresent their internal uncertainty--undermining trustworthiness and reliability. Since monitoring task performance and adapting behavior accordingly are central to metacognition, we posit that models capable of accurately judging their own performance are better positioned to improve it. We operationalize this idea via two novel mechanisms: reinforcement learning with metacognitive feedback (RLMF), a paradigm to refine completion rankings during preference optimization based on the quality of a model's self-judgments of performance, and metacognitive data selection, which uses similar self-judgments to identify high-value training examples, outperforming naive active learning. We apply these innovations to the problem of faithful calibration (FC), a task that is itself fundamentally metacognitive: the goal is to align expressed with intrinsic uncertainty, difficult even for frontier LLMs. We adopt a two-stage, decoupled approach, first using these methods to calibrate the faithfulness of models' self-reported confidence scores, then mapping to natural, context-adaptable linguistic uncertainty via targeted output editing. Extensive experiments show RLMF achieves generalizable, state-of-the-art FC on diverse tasks while preserving accuracy. Further, RLMF surpasses standard RL by up to 63% while enhancing models' ability to assess and express their own capability limits. This positions RLMF as a promising paradigm to enhance LLM metacognition toward improved abilities and alignment, and suggests metacognitive performance as an effective RL signal to overcome limits of prior intrinsic feedback methods.

Uncertainty estimation has been a long-standing challenge in AI models; it amounts to "knowing what you don't know," and metacognition is notoriously difficult even for humans (cf. the Dunning-Kruger effect). Although it is still far from solved even in simpler classification systems, tackling it in multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is becoming increasingly important. Within MLLMs, uncertainty can stem from any of the diverse sources as well as from their relationships, and further can stem from the unbounded answers in the open-ended setting. To tackle the issues, we propose CoMet, an MLLM uncertainty estimation method by decomposing uncertainty into a context-specific term and a multiplicity-specific term. The former captures ambiguity induced by the given context (e.g., task or prompt), while the latter captures how many plausible answers determined by the context remain compatible with the given input. We train a lightweight post-hoc uncertainty module to estimate these quantities, which enables efficient uncertainty estimation without autoregressive answer generation or repeated sampling. Experiments on various open-ended multimodal benchmarks, hallucination detection, and multiple-choice visual question answering benchmarks show that CoMet consistently improves uncertainty estimation over existing baselines while remaining efficient in practice. Code is available at https://github.com/princetonvisualai/comet_uncertainty

We study a single idea across two settings: that a prediction-error signal, computed by a small predictor over the latent space of a frozen encoder, can serve both as a gate on plasticity and as a substrate for metacognition. In the first system, a non-parametric episodic memory writes a new concept only when this surprise is high, and a periodic offline replay phase consolidates recent traces into a slow linear readout. On a continual stream of 1000 ImageNet classes with a frozen DINOv2 or I-JEPA backbone, the consolidation phase recovers 17.7 points of retention on the oldest classes for DINOv2 and 51.3 points for I-JEPA (single-seed runs), and an ablation shows that replaying only a recent window is worse than no replay at all. In few-shot evaluation the same memory reaches 91.6% on 5-way 1-shot mini-ImageNet, above a task-specific baseline, while a harder 500-way regime exposes the true difficulty. In the second system, the same surprise signal, computed in a shared text-image space, modulates the behaviour of a vision-language model: it answers assertively when a concept is known, hedges when it is partially familiar, and refuses to identify the object and asks for an explanation when it is novel, learning the concept from a single user utterance. The external detector separates known from novel concepts at an AUROC of 0.966 (95% CI +/-0.024), far above the model's own verbalised confidence (0.618), while its token-level confidence sits below chance under greedy decoding; after a sleep phase that empties the fast store, the system recalls 99.2% of fifty taught facts from the consolidated store while a base model recovers none. We report both systems as proof-of-concept, with explicit limitations, and position the second against recent episodic-memory and personalised-VLM work.

With the rapid advancement of aerospace embodied intelligence, enabling Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to autonomously understand and reason about complex environments has become increasingly important. However, existing UAV-based spatial reasoning approaches face critical limitations: single-view perception renders them vulnerable to occlusions and perspective distortions, while most VLMs lack explicit geometric modeling, relying on semantic cues and yielding inconsistent reasoning under viewpoint and scale variations. To address these challenges, we propose SatAgent, a UAV-Satellite collaborative spatial reasoning model inspired by the dual-pathway mechanism of the human visual system. By jointly leveraging satellite and UAV perspectives, SatAgent enables robust, accurate reasoning in complex urban environments. We first introduce a Geometric-Aware 3D Reconstruction Encoder that elevates 2D UAV features into explicit 3D spatial representations. Next, we design a multi-view topology-semantic alignment module integrating cross-view features within a unified BEV coordinate system. We further introduce a multi-view consistency loss encouraging viewpoint-invariant representations. Finally, we construct SatAgent-SR130K, the first large-scale UAV-Satellite collaborative multi-view spatial reasoning dataset. Experiments show SatAgent outperforms state-of-the-art general-purpose foundation models and specialized spatial reasoning models by 25.91% and 11.69%, respectively, across diverse tasks, achieving particularly high accuracy in complex geometric relationship reasoning.

Human swarm intelligence demonstrates remarkable collective accuracy but faces scalability constraints in cost, coordination, and time. We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can approximate swarm intelligence effects through artificial swarms, addressing a critical gap in understanding AI-based aggregation mechanisms. We conducted a controlled experiment with 960 manually executed prompts across three proprietary models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5), testing intra-model sampling and inter-model aggregation on eight estimation tasks. Results reveal consistent error reduction through intra- and inter-model aggregation, with significant error reductions up to 37 percentage points in MAPE across different aggregation strategies. We observed small to large effect sizes for positive correlations (Spearman's $ρ=0.242-0.568$, all $p<0.001$) between relative confidence interval widths and relative estimation errors, suggesting LLMs possess metacognitive awareness when assessing uncertainty. We discuss implications for research and practice, providing actionable insights for deploying LLM swarms in organizational decision-making.

Human adults can often perform a novel task correctly on the first attempt after only receiving verbal or written instructions. This rapid instructed task learning (RITL) is a hallmark of human cognitive flexibility, yet its mechanisms and parallels in artificial systems remain under-explored across disciplines. In this position paper, we argue that humans possess an evolved instruction-following bias -- an inductive bias shaped by evolution to interpret and execute linguistic instructions which critically enables fast generalization of behavior from language. This bias functions analogously to the way large language models (LLMs) leverage instruction tuning to achieve zero-shot task performance. We synthesize evidence from cognitive science, neuroscience, and machine learning research to support this hypothesis. While instruction-following in AI is currently achieved via specialized training protocols, we posit that in humans it arises as an innate cognitive architecture feature. We outline testable predictions and call for more interdisciplinary research to investigate Instruction-Following as a unifying mechanism enabling rapid task learning in both natural and artificial neural networks.

We present ThinkProbe, a framework for structural analysis of LLM reasoning traces. ThinkProbe converts each trace into a Thought Graph a directed graph with cycles, 8 node types, and 6 edge types and derives a 19-metric five-dimensional cognitive profile (5D-CP: Breadth, Depth, Structure, Metacognitive, Efficiency) through a fully non-generative pipeline combining rule-based segmentation and discriminative semantic linking. Applied to 4{,}200 traces from 7 native reasoning models across 200 open-ended questions and 10 cognitive domains, ThinkProbe reveals that reasoning structure is a stable, model-level property: between-model variance exceeds between-domain variance by up to fourfold across four of five cognitive dimensions, with Structure showing genuine sensitivity to question domain, exposing qualitatively distinct cognitive profiles invisible to accuracy-based evaluation.

Predicting student performance and characterizing metacognitive calibration are essential for personalization in intelligent tutoring systems. Prior research treats performance prediction, calibration error calculation, and variance decomposition as separate pipelines, preventing unified interpretation. I propose the Unified Behavioral Prediction and Calibration Analysis Pipeline (UBP-CAP), an integrated framework processing student pre-execution behavioral telemetry through three linked modules: (1) a LightGBM classifier with SHAP for binary correctness prediction, (2) formal calibration metrics (ECE, MCE, and Brier score decomposition) to evaluate metacognitive alignment, and (3) a crossed Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Model (GLMM) for decomposing calibration deviations. I introduce the Predictive-Explanatory Divergence Index (PEDI), which quantifies structural divergence between predictive and explanatory feature profiles. Evaluated on 1,195 interaction records (27 students, 45 tasks), Logistic Regression achieves AUC-ROC = 0.903, outperforming LightGBM (0.878). Student naive ECE (0.109) significantly exceeds model ECE (0.068), confirming systematic miscalibration. The crossed GLMM yields ICCStudent = 0.123, showing calibration is situational rather than dispositional. PEDIcos = 0.081 (p = 0.327) indicates structural alignment between prediction and explanation on shared behavioral features.

Speech-based cognitive impairment detection offers a noninvasive, accessible alternative to costly biomarker assays, yet transformer-based models remain clinically uninterpretable. We propose a multi-stage explainability framework that translates black-box transformer predictions into clinically grounded narratives by integrating SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP)-based token attribution, theory-informed linguistic features, and a four-stage LLM reasoning pipeline using LLaMA-3.1-70B-Instruct. Built on the SpeechCARE-Adaptive Gating Network multimodal screening model (F1 = 72.11% on the NIA PREPARE benchmark), the framework maps model outputs to four cognitive-linguistic dimensions, including lexical richness, syntactic complexity, and semantic coherence. Physician evaluation on 70 stratified English samples demonstrated strong alignment with patient-level cognitive profiles, and a System Usability Scale score of 82/100 indicated high potential for clinical workflow integration.

We present a conceptual framework for analyzing dialogue in collaborative problem-solving contexts, with an emphasis on the emerging dynamics of human-AI and multi-agent collaboration. As intelligent systems become active agents capable of autonomous reasoning and strategic cooperation, understanding the dialogic interaction during collaborative problem solving is increasingly important for optimizing and evaluating such partnerships. Our framework addresses key limitations in current analytical approaches through a hierarchical two-layer coding scheme that integrates cognitive and non-cognitive problem solving with metacognitive regulatory mechanisms. We demonstrate its effectiveness and generalizability across nine datasets spanning multiple domains, and provide insights into how humans and agents coordinate their knowledge, skills, and efforts to solve complex problems, showing in particular that metacognitive regulation can be an essential discriminator of deeper collaboration.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) tend to produce longer reasoning traces for problems on which humans also spend more time. This correspondence suggests a shared sensitivity to difficulty, yet difficult problems can invite both persistence and withdrawal. We distinguish difficulty registration, expressed in which problems elicit more deliberation, from the allocation of further work. We examine their relation in matched human and LRM data from visual abstraction, intuitive physics, and relational reasoning. On visual abstraction, model trace length tracks the human ordering of problems by duration. After item identity is controlled, successful human attempts last longer than failed attempts, while failed LRM attempts have longer traces than successful ones in the pooled model analysis. The estimated outcome slopes follow the same pattern in intuitive physics. In relational reasoning, successful attempts are longer in separate human and model analyses. Fitting the two groups together with shared item effects yields a human-LRM difference in the relation between duration and outcome. Human grid actions connect longer attempts with sustained task engagement. Failed LRM traces contain more hedging or repetition after length is controlled, with the form of the difference varying across tasks. A resource-rational account explains how the expected reducibility of uncertainty and the value assigned to further computation can produce different patterns of persistence despite similar sensitivity to difficulty. Agreement about which problems require more deliberation can therefore coexist with different patterns of persistence on those problems.

AI-based scientific automation is increasingly possible by using agents to generate hypotheses, design experiments, and analyze data. Data collection is a major bottleneck in this pipeline, however. Psychology, and computational cognitive science in particular, is well-positioned to benefit from AI experimentation because theories are often represented as code and crowdsourcing platforms enable programmatic human data collection at scale. Here, we apply automated discovery techniques to the project of generating theories in computational cognitive science, with an agent-based system collecting human data independently through crowdsourced survey experiments. As a testbed, we use a classic case study from cognitive psychology: judging which sequences of coin flips seem subjectively more random. Our system, auto-psych, uses nested agent-based discovery loops to generate explanatory theories of human behavior. The inner loop conjectures, fits, and critiques probabilistic cognitive models; the outer loop designs experiments to test these models, launches them online, and analyzes the data. This system can quickly and reliably recover ground-truth theories from synthetic data via systematic experimentation, but the nested structure is critical to model performance. Further, in three independent sequences of human experiments, the system finds theories that fit the data better than theories generated from the scientific literature. This work thus demonstrates the feasibility of automated data collection and theory discovery in computational cognitive science.

Across the sciences, autonomous systems are increasingly being used in closed-loop discovery, proposing new theories and designing and running experiments to test them. This approach is yet to be applied in the field of cognitive science, where the central bottleneck is theory-building: the creative step of turning the accumulated failures of existing models into better ones. Theory generation has remained manual even as data collection, modeling, and experiment design have been automated. We present the Automated Cognitive Scientist (AutoCog), a fully autonomous agentic-AI system that closes this loop. Large-language-model agents advocate competing theories, each expressed as an executable cognitive model, design experiments that best discriminate them, collect behavioral data from participants recruited online, score theories against collected data based on their generative performance, diagnose why they fail, and synthesize a better successor. Repeating this cycle allows them to search the space of theories, models, and experiments. In the domain of decision-making, AutoCog recovered known decision-making strategies from simulated behavior, including unconventional ones, showing that its discoveries are ultimately driven by the data rather than strictly bound by the priors of the underlying language models. When run with human participants, it produced theories that outperformed the established theories it was seeded with and generalized to held-out studies in two different experimental settings. It also surfaced a novel theory of multi-cue decision-making in which choices show diminishing sensitivity to feature values. The distinctive predictions of this theory were confirmed in a preregistered study with new participants. AutoCog demonstrates how an automated discovery system can be used to turn cognitive theory-building into an explicit, executable, and cumulative science.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as investment research assistants, yet no benchmark tests whether they can accurately reconstruct and apply the specific procedural decision frameworks of expert investors. We introduce InvestPhilBench, a multi-layer benchmark spanning eight cognitive tiers, from principle identification (L1) to novel framework extrapolation (L8). The v0.6 release comprises 118 primary-source-verified principle cards, 25 decision-framework cards with explicit topology metadata, and 243 QA questions (197 dev / 46 held-out test). For reproducible scoring at scale we introduce the Benchmark Automated Scoring Pipeline (BASP), five algorithmic metrics, the Failure Mode Detection Protocol (FMDP) covering six failure modes, and Gate Reconstruction Accuracy (GRA), a per-gate metric for questions with gold reasoning programs. This release is primarily a benchmark-and-methodology contribution: its empirical study -- a four-model sanity wave on the 188-question development split (closed-book) -- is deliberately preliminary and stress-tests the metric design rather than ranking models. The wave shows a sharp provider-tier split (BASP 0.906 vs. 0.438), though these mixed-judge numbers are confounded upper bounds. The central methodological finding survives the caveat: the BASP composite saturates at the frontier (Claude L4 = 0.932) while GRA still exposes a procedural deficit (frontier L4 GRA ~0.77, L7 GRA 0.57-0.62) -- composite scoring rewards fluent prose and hides the procedural gap. On a 100-item expert-annotated gold set, the automated BASP composite tracks the human reference at Pearson r = 0.72 (MAE = 0.10). v0.6 also implements a unified judge and true model-in-the-loop retrieval/oracle conditions; the de-confounded multi-model leaderboard and full three-condition run are v1.0 deliverables.

Large language models exhibit a growing range of misaligned behaviors such as strategic deception, sandbagging, and self-preservation. As they are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings, it is critical to reliably detect such behaviors to ensure safe and responsible use. In this work, we propose to monitor misalignment by decomposing it into fine-grained cognitive processes -- misalignment indicators -- and detecting their presence in a model's internal activations via linear probes. We develop a taxonomy of 18 indicators spanning different misaligned behaviors, paired with an automated, meta-plan-guided pipeline that generates multi-turn training conversations. To rigorously evaluate generalization, we construct an out-of-distribution suite combining automated behavioral elicitation, established misalignment benchmarks, and natural benign conversations. Across 5 misaligned behaviors, our probes match a strong LLM judge with 0.935 AUROC on out-of-distribution benchmarks while keeping a low false positive rate on benign traffic. We further perform in-depth analysis to understand the probes and the model's internal representations of misalignment indicators.

Long agent traces composed of chains of thought and tool calls accumulate stale content that anchor subsequent generations, and eventually outgrow the context window. Existing scaffolds mitigate it with fixed-interval compaction triggered at a token threshold. Such triggers pay no heed to trajectory structure, risking discard of partial results mid-derivation or mid-search. We propose SelfCompact, a scaffold that allows the model itself to decide when and how to compact. Specifically, it pairs two inference-time elements: (i) a compaction tool the model invokes to summarize the accumulated context, and (ii) a lightweight rubric specifying when to fire (a sub-task has resolved, or the trajectory is converging) and when to suppress (mid-derivation, or when stuck). Both are needed. The tool alone is unevenly used across open-weight models, often invoked at unhelpful moments or not at all; the rubric alone cannot act. Together, they elicit effective adaptive compaction without any fine-tuning or external supervision. We present empirical results on six benchmarks (competitive math and agentic search) and seven models. Our results show that SelfCompact matches or exceeds fixed-interval summarization at a fraction of the token cost, improving over a no-summarization baseline by up to 18.1 points on math and 5-9 points on agentic search at 30-70% lower per-question cost. Our results expose a meta-cognitive gap: although unprompted models cannot reliably tell when their own context is rotting, a lightweight rubric closes this gap, reframing when to compact as a capability that scaffolds can supply without training.

Confidence calibration in large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated by comparing predicted confidence with observed accuracy. However, such approaches do not model item difficulty, making it difficult to interpret discrepancies and to determine whether model confidence reflects genuine self-assessment or is merely a byproduct of the response generation process. To address this, we adopt a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective, and propose Latent Confidence Alignment Error (LCAE) to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty. We further incorporate item difficulty as an external signal with a reasoning mechanism. Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability, and reveals an association between reliability and inference cost.

Conversational AI promises a new kind of preparation for high-stakes workplace negotiations -- personalized, interactive, and capable of simulating realistic resistance. That promise is intuitive. We built Trucey, a theory-driven coaching system, to test it. The system encoded four assumptions: that articulation supports clarification, that personalization builds strategic competence, that chunked delivery reduces cognitive load, and that structured scaffolding removes metacognitive burden. A pre-registered experiment (N=267) and interviews (N=15) complicated each of them. Notably, the static handbook we included as a passive control outperformed both AI conditions on empowerment and usability. We reflect on why: each assumption encoded a specific model of how preparation unfolds, and the findings revealed that conversational AI imposes a linear execution model on a task that is fundamentally recursive. We identify an unexamined scope condition on established HAI design guidelines and close with a sequencing principle -- map before path, path before simulation -- for future AI coaching design.

As Self-Driving Cars continue to expand internationally and use multi-modal systems such as VLMs as a cognitive backbone for their Action models; how well will these systems generalize in new settings, in particular out-of-distribution (OOD) edge-case scenarios in new geographies? In this paper, we study this open question by providing a full factorial analysis with human drivers of Lima, human drivers from New York City, and VLMs and showing them dashcam footage collected from Lima and New York City -- prompting them with a variety of questions under a Visual Question Answering (VQA) paradigm. In particular, we pick these two cities as they are highly challenging driving locations where no Self-Driving Car company currently operates in, and ask questions that span 4 categories: Factual, Ratings, Counterfactual and Reasoning. We find that Humans and VLMs diverge in their responses -- though this is modulated by the type of questions asked, and that Humans answer similarly independent of where they are from (Lima/NYC). To our surprise, we did not find a strong difference in terms of answers (Humans or VLMs) that was modulated by geography, likely due to their high out-of-distribution nature. Our dataset is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/Artificio/robusto-2

Omni-modal models can ingest video, audio, and text, but unified access to multiple modalities does not guarantee that a model uses the right evidence. This gap is especially pronounced in social video question answering, where the answer may hinge on a gesture, vocal tone, temporal cue, or mismatch between what is said and what is visually expressed. We introduce CogniRoute, a schema-guided Mixture-of-Experts framework for social omni reasoning. CogniRoute uses a training-only cognitive schema that factorizes each example by cross-modal relation, reasoning demand, and temporal scope, and aligns global routing signatures with this structure during supervised fine-tuning. We further introduce route-aware reinforcement learning, which jointly optimizes token generation and expert allocation using rewards for answer correctness, modality-consistent reasoning, and cognitive temporal grounding. To support training and evaluation, we construct OmniSocialBench, a diagnostic social video QA resource with 118K structured training examples, grounded reasoning traces, schema labels, temporal evidence spans, and a manually verified evaluation split. CogniRoute achieves 59.38% average accuracy on OmniSocialBench, improving over the strongest proprietary baseline by 15.33 percentage points and the strongest open-source omni baseline by 26.77 points, with the largest gains on questions requiring audio-visual coordination, conflict resolution, and temporally grounded social inference.

Early detection of cognitive impairment relies on neuropsychological tests to minimize subjectivity by assessing multiple cognitive domains. Speech-based evaluation can support diagnostics and improve accessibility, but transcription errors and the omission of nonverbal subtests (e.g., motor skills) limit accuracy. Beyond conventional test scores, speech-derived features can provide additional insights into cognitive status. This study investigates the speech-based evaluation of the German "Syndrom-Kurz-Test," a standardized dementia screening test comprising verbal and motor subtests. We train models that integrate transcript-derived scores and Whisper embeddings per verbal subtest to reduce scoring errors. To compensate for missing motor subtests, we then leverage these fused representations to approximate expert overall ratings. Despite omitting subtests, our models strongly correlate with expert ratings and efficiently and accurately discriminate between cognitive status groups.

Despite increasing adoption of multimodal approaches in Alzheimer's Disease (AD) research -- aimed at integrating molecular, structural, clinical, and genetic biomarkers to enhance disease characterization -- the relationships among these modalities remain poorly understood. A systematic analysis of their dynamic interaction is essential for improving disease modeling, identifying redundant assessments, and reducing patient burden and acquisition costs. In this paper, we present a quantitative analysis of multimodal AD biomarkers by integrating tau-PET, structural MRI, cognitive scores (MMSE and CDR), and APOE4 data from 789 subjects drawn from the ADNI dataset. In our analyses, we (A) quantify cross-modal mutual information and explained variance to assess redundancy and predictive dependencies; (B) examine associations between tau topologies and structural atrophy across brain regions to select informative ROIs; (C) perform a statistical decomposition of the tau-cognition association into atrophy-related and atrophy-independent components; (D) and identify a dominant neurodegenerative trajectory that aligns with cognitive decline. This study provides a systematic characterization of cross-modal relationships, improving the interpretability and selection of biomarkers in AD. Code is publicly available at: https://github.com/antonioscardace/Multimodal-AD.

People make decisions differently in strategic interactions. Some update beliefs like a Bayesian; others exhibit biases like motivated reasoning. Although creators of large language models use simulated humans for safety evaluations and training, they often fail to cover this breadth of human behavior. We argue that cognitive science and economics provide a convenient tool for doing so, making use of mathematical models of human decision-making. We propose an approach that we call Equation-to-Behavior Prompting for guiding large language models to match cognitive models, and evaluate this approach on persuasion games based on legal decision-making. We find that large models can approximate equation-based specifications -- Bayesian updating, affine distortion, motivated updating, and Grether's $α$-$β$ model -- using prompting, but small models fail to do so. However, training small models with reinforcement learning to adhere to mathematical rules, Equation-to-Behavior RL, reduces belief error by 26.5% in out-of-distribution parameterizations. We show that these simulations can help create diverse training environments; training small models to consider different kinds of decision-makers improves average belief change by 2.5%--12% over Bayesian-only training, even when persuading GPT-5-mini. Our work could improve human simulations for training and evaluation in increasingly realistic settings, and could also enable novel research into more complicated mathematical models of human decision-making.

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming a major way for consumers to find products, but we do not yet understand how brands compete in this new channel. We study brand dynamics in LLM recommendations using skincare products -- a category where consumers cannot easily judge quality before buying and must rely on brand reputation -- across three commercial LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude Sonnet, Gemini 3 Flash), with a robustness check on search goods. In three experiments, we find: (1) a Conditional Monopoly where well-known brands get recommended 100% of the time (IAI = 10.0) when all products have the same specifications, but this dominance disappears with less than a +0.1-star rating advantage for a competitor; (2) authority-style marketing language, including fabricated clinical-evidence claims, breaks this monopoly at a Bias Surplus Value equal to +0.17 rating points, with each model responding differently; and (3) a social dilemma in multi-brand GEO competition: when all brands adopt the same optimization strategy, individual payoff falls from +0.802 to +0.007 in our payoff proxy, and non-participating brands receive zero recommendations in our tests. Our results suggest that generative engine optimization (GEO) should be studied not only as a security risk, but also as an emerging marketing practice that shapes market competition.

AI systems based on artificial neural networks are being developed with aspirations of pushing the boundary of human mathematical knowledge. A key question for these systems is how much they can reach beyond their training data. Mathematical discovery requires a strong form of out of distribution generalization; the ability to hypothesize genuinely new - and potentially logically more powerful - mathematical structures. It has been hypothesized that language abilities support such generalizations in human cognition. In this work, we use simple arithmetic as a case study for examining how modern AI models could expand their mathematical horizons, evaluating whether these models can independently discover the concept of "zero". We show that (1) language models of a GPT-2 size are unable to perform this generalization at test time regardless of language pretraining, but (2) models can improve substantially after training on tens or hundreds of examples of zero. Additionally, we find that language pretraining reduces the number of required examples by approximately $50\%$, showing that language abilities can scaffold mathematical discovery in neural models.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) improves large language models' performance in math and symbolic reasoning. But on planning, contested ethics, and tasks where the model cannot check itself, more reasoning makes things worse. Both effects are documented; what has been missing is a principled account of which property decides the outcome. We argue it is meta-uncertainty: how unsure the model is about the reliability of its own evidence. When that uncertainty is high, extra reasoning stops adding signal and starts manufacturing false confidence. We prove that the policy minimizing expected free energy under uncertain precision stops integrating cues after a finite number of high-validity ones when the precision prior is heavy-tailed (Theorem 2.6.1), and under a Descending Dominance condition, is sample-wise identical to take-the-best (Theorem 2.7.4). Fast-and-frugal heuristics and active inference are, then, two descriptions of the same computation. The prediction is that on high-meta-uncertainty items, longer CoT should degrade accuracy. We score the regime per item (simulate-and-recover rho > 0.96), build FEH-79, a benchmark of Knightian frames with matched controls, and run a pre-registered study across seven models (five open-weight 3B-32B, two frontier), five CoT lengths, and 7,875 responses. The gate, fixed before any data, required a negative interaction with posterior probability above 0.95 and an accuracy drop of more than 6 points. It held. The high-regime drop is 17.3 points (95% CI [7.7, 25.5]); matched items with definite answers show no cost. The effect is regime-dependent: decisive in capable mid-to-large models, directional in the two frontier systems, absent-to-reversed in the weakest. The framework answers when CoT helps and unifies the Bayesian and fast-and-frugal traditions: less-is-more effects are evidence about the meta-uncertainty regime, not against Bayesian cognition.

Qualitative coding is central to social science, but expert annotation is difficult to scale. LLMs offer a possible extension, yet require careful validation when the target construct is interpretive, theoretically loaded, and only indirectly expressed. We study this problem in a difficult case: detecting whether authors treat Bayesian models as descriptions of mental and neural mechanisms (realism) or as useful mathematical tools (instrumentalism). Our method combines a theory-driven codebook, expert-coded reference annotations, a diagnostic-gated prompt-optimization search yielding a shared zero-shot prompt for three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro Preview), and multi-rater reliability analysis. The final prompt achieved a held-out combined reliability score of 0.76 (harmonic mean of ICC = 0.79 and $α$ = 0.74), with all diagnostics satisfied. Deployed on 6,858 quotes from 210 articles, the three LLMs reached substantial quote-level agreement (ICC = 0.80; $α$ = 0.76; combined = 0.78) and near-perfect article-level rank stability ($r$ = 0.96-0.97 across rater pairs). The corpus was predominantly weakly realist, but article-level stances were rarely uniform: only 1.4% of articles used a single band, while 59.5% spanned four or more. Low-level perception/motor articles scored 8.8 Realism points higher than high-level cognition articles ($p < .001$, $d = 0.60$), quantifying a long-held qualitative intuition. We present this as an expert-led case study; the framework is intended to generalize to similar theoretically demanding tasks, not to all qualitative analysis.

Human-robot collaboration (HRC) in prefabricated construction requires planning approaches that consider not only productivity but also time-dependent worker states during repeated work and rest. Existing planning models often rely on simplified assumptions about fatigue, workload, or recovery, with limited domain-specific empirical evidence on how perceived strain evolves. This study develops an empirically grounded, planning-oriented approach to characterize perceived strain accumulation and recovery in prefabricated construction HRC. A controlled repeated work-rest experiment assessed perceived cognitive and physical strain using the Rating Scale for Mental Effort and Borg's Rating of Perceived Exertion. Linear and exponential functional forms were evaluated, followed by mixed-effects modeling to examine collaborative conditions, session effects, and inter-individual variability. Results indicate that cognitive strain accumulation is best represented by a linear mixed-effects model, whereas rest-phase recovery follows nonlinear decay. The resulting planning-oriented models may inform future human-state-aware task allocation and scheduling research.

A key challenge of speaker de-identification is the balance between privacy and utility. Many utility variables, such as the cognitive health status of the speaker, are correlated with the privacy variable, such as the speaker identity, violating the independence assumption held by the disentanglement-based approaches, causing leakage of private information and the loss of useful information for downstream tasks. To tackle this challenge, we propose a general framework, DDPO-VC, for speaker de-identification through reinforcement learning-based post-training with diffusion models. Learning from reward signals combining knowledge from privacy-focused and utility-focused teachers, our method outperforms various strong \deid/ methods in both privacy preservation and cognitive utility on two commonly used dementia speech benchmarks. Please check out our code\footnote{\href{https://github.com/cactuswiththoughts/DDPO-VC}{https://github.com/cactuswiththoughts/DDPO-VC}} and demo\footnote{\href{https://cactuswiththoughts.github.io/SpeakerDeID-Demo/}{https://cactuswiththoughts.github.io/SpeakerDeID-Demo/}}.

Proactive warning is an important capability for edge intelligent services, where the system predicts whether a subject will successfully complete an incoming task under strict latency and privacy constraints. Such prediction depends on both long-term static attributes and short-term dynamic states derived from historical interaction logs. Recent Large Language Models (LLMs) offer strong long-context reasoning for constructing structured profiles from these logs, but existing solutions face two challenges for edge deployment: (1) profiling methods are typically domain-specific and lack a reusable abstraction across service scenarios, and (2) fine-tuning alignment models on heterogeneous edge clusters incurs high synchronization overhead due to the variance in input sequence lengths. To address these challenges, we propose CogGuard, a proactive-warning framework for edge intelligent services. CogGuard decouples offline LLM-based profile construction from online Small Language Model (SLM)-based score prediction through a shared static-dynamic profile-to-score pipeline, and instantiates it in two representative scenarios: educational performance warning and operational task outcome warning. For efficient profile construction, we design scenario-specific profiling methods with prefix-aligned KV-cache reuse to reduce repeated encoding overhead. For edge-side model alignment, we propose a length-aware distributed fine-tuning strategy with contrastive regularization to mitigate workload imbalance on heterogeneous clusters. Experiments on education and operation datasets show that CogGuard reduces profile construction time by up to 48% and distributed fine-tuning time by 19%, while achieving MAEs of 13.4 and 5.9, respectively, on 100-point-scale warning tasks. In the largest educational setting, CogGuard reduces prediction error by 15.4% compared with the strongest baseline.

We develop a formal theory of cognitive debt: the stock of unverified reasoning obligations that accumulates when individuals use AI as a substitute rather than a complement for first-principles cognition. The model features two state variables per agent, cognitive capital and cognitive debt, and a multiplicative production technology in which cognitive capital functions as collateral that determines the return to AI adoption. We establish six propositions. Rational agents incur positive cognitive debt because the costs are deferred, partially external, and masked by short-run productivity gains. Tranquil periods lower subjective risk assessments, raise AI substitution intensity, and compound leverage, generating a cognitive Minsky moment in which subjective risk falls while true systemic fragility rises. Expected crisis losses are convex in aggregate leverage. Post-crisis, output-target pressure can produce a false-correction loop in which agents patch AI failures with more AI. The decentralised equilibrium over-adopts substitutive AI relative to the social optimum because of systemic risk, cognitive public goods, and arms-race externalities. In a two-type heterogeneous-agent economy, high-cognitive-capital agents adopt AI more intensively and may eventually erode their unaided cognitive capital below that of initially lower-skilled agents.

Complex cognitive, emotional, and social processes shape human evacuations during natural disasters. Accurate modeling and understanding of human behavior in disasters or emergencies can greatly impact the evacuation process by informing more effective planning and resource allocation. However, collecting human data in these situations is very difficult, and existing computational evacuation models assume rational, homogeneous behavior, leading to unrealistic, overly optimistic predictions. To address this gap, we present a simulation framework of sequential human decision-making during an evacuation scenario, introducing cognitively grounded, persona-driven agents. Our framework models evacuation behavior in a grid-based urban environment that evolves over time, capturing fire and other hazards. Human agents are modeled as personas that make sequential decisions in response to environmental stimuli with cognition structured in three levels: high-level evacuation goals, mid-level route reasoning, and low-level navigation. Decision-making is driven by large language models (LLMs) coupled with a cognitive module and calibrated with empirical human evacuation data. We propose a dynamic, stimulus-driven disaster simulation framework that models human evacuation decision-making using persona-conditioned LLM agents and a cognitive hierarchy.

The recent successes of neural networks producing human-like language have caused significant stir in cognitive science, with many researchers arguing that classical puzzles about human cognition and challenges to artificial intelligence are being solved by neural networks. A notable case is the argument from systematicity due to Jerry Fodor and Zenon Pylyshyn, argues that humans display systematic biconditional dependencies. For example, someone can understand the sentence "John saw Mary" just in case that they understand the sentence "Mary saw John." Symbolic systems explain this systematicity of language and thought, while neural networks offer no immediate explanation. Several recent articles argue that this challenge has now been met by neural networks. In particular, Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni argue that their meta-learning for compositionality protocol matches and perhaps explains human systematicity. We demonstrate that these conclusions are premature. Among other results, we found that their model struggles to learn rules that are even slightly out of distribution compared to their training data. Furthermore, the model behaves unsystematically even on many within-distribution problems. We conclude that Fodor and Pylyshyn's challenge to neural networks remains unmet.

LLM-based agents trained with reinforcement learning optimize step-wise action prediction but lack metacognitive awareness of task progress, inducing a gap that hinders long-horizon scaling. A pilot study reveals that online progress prompting hurts performance while retrospective demonstrations help, yet this capability cannot emerge from outcome-reward training alone. We present RePro, Retrospective Progress-Aware Training, a framework that trains agents to self-generate progress signals via a forward-then-reflect rollout paradigm: the agent executes actions online, then retrospectively reassesses its step-wise progress given the completed trajectory and known outcome. RePro initializes with a Retrospection Warmup that teaches reflection format from minimal external demonstrations, then further trains through RePro-PO with a composite reward that produces self-generated signals without continuous external supervision. Experiments on WebShop, ALFWorld, and Sokoban show that RePro enhances the Qwen family's performance, with up to $12\%$ absolute success rate gains.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD) by enabling heuristic generation through reasoning and code synthesis. In LLM-based AHD, the LLM reasons about algorithm design and generates executable heuristic code. Existing architectures adopt two main paradigms: Natural Evolution applies crossover and mutation to this code to explore diverse strategies, but discards the reasoning traces behind the design decisions, weakening knowledge retention; Metacognitive Evolution retains these reasoning traces and refines them through reflection, but lacks population-level recombination, limiting exploration. These limitations reduce search efficiency, stability, and solution quality on complex problems. To address this gap, we propose MeEvo, an AHD framework that cyclically couples Natural Evolution and Metacognitive Evolution with operator balance that shifts from exploration to exploitation. Natural Evolution explores heuristic code while recording LLM-generated reasoning traces, fitness values, errors and best heuristic into a shared history; Metacognitive Evolution then reflects on this history to generate improved heuristics that feed into the next Natural Evolution cycle. This design enables population-driven exploration and reflection-driven refinement to reinforce each other. Experiments on five optimization problems show that MeEvo achieves stronger performance and lower variance than tested LLM-based AHD architectures, especially on complex constrained tasks.

Strategic reasoning under uncertainty underpins consequential decisions in negotiation, finance, and policy, but prevailing game-play benchmarks collapse heterogeneous reasoning dimensions into a single scalar, leaving the capability structure of frontier LLMs unexamined. We introduce Poker Arena, a no-limit Texas Hold'em tournament platform that couples a three-layer memory architecture (within-hand, session, and cross-session) with a nine-axis cognitive profile decomposing strategic reasoning into interpretable dimensions such as bet-sizing calibration and positional awareness. We evaluate seven frontier models across 50 sessions of 1,000 hands and a controlled memory ablation; tournament chips and aggregate axis score order the field differently: Claude Opus 4.6 wins +$15,730 chips with 14 first-place finishes, yet ranks only fifth of seven on mean axis score, while persistent memory helps some models and hurts others. These findings show that multi-axis evaluation surfaces capability structure that scalar leaderboards systematically misrank, with cross-dimensional consistency outweighing peak performance on any single axis.

This paper examines three recent frameworks for understanding the cognitive and epistemic consequences of artificial intelligence: Tri-System Theory, Thinkframes, and System 0. It argues that while the first two capture important dimensions of AI's influence on individual reasoning and collective epistemic practices, System 0 occupies a theoretically distinctive position that neither can fully replicate. The paper introduces the concept of cognitive colonization, according to which AI systems can embed external interests within the architecture of the self in ways that are difficult for users to perceive. Because such systems are already widely deployed, understanding these invisible forms of influence is an urgent philosophical and practical task.

While non-verbal behaviors and expressive movements are essential for natural human-robot interaction, existing methods often overlook a crucial element: the human's internal cognitive state. Frequently, proactive multi-agent systems can interrupt humans at inopportune moments, leading to cognitive overload and decreased task performance. This paper introduces a framework for generating "cognitively aligned" multi-agent interactions, enhancing the ability of robotic systems to contextually defer communications to the user of an agent system during moments of high human mental workload and engagement. We present the design and implementation of a closed-loop architecture that explores the interplay between autonomous task execution and real-time neurophysiological focus. Using a consumer-grade Brain-Computer Interface (BCI), our approach continuously monitors Electroencephalography (EEG) spectral band powers while a human performs an engagement-inducing task. We propose an engagement-driven pipeline where an HTTP-based signaling mechanism places a primary agent's sensory inputs and audio outputs into a holding state upon detecting high engagement. This allows secondary agents to seamlessly process complex, delegated tasks in the background. Once the human's cognitive state returns to a lower cognitive load baseline, the primary agent releases the queued agent message. Our preliminary results demonstrate the feasibility of leveraging real-time signal processing, Large Language Models (LLMs), and physical robotic embodiments to create cognitively-aware, non-intrusive multi-agent systems.

As LLM agents proliferate in prediction markets and collective decision-making, they risk a cognitive monoculture: agents built on shared foundation models produce correlated forecasts, and recent measurement finds frontier-model errors correlated at r ~ 0.77. We ask whether human cognitive diversity can be recovered from behavior and transferred to LLM agents. Nous extracts a structured eight-dimension behavioral profile from real Polymarket trading activity and injects it into agents through prompts. Our central finding is a dissociation between the two halves of that pipeline. Extraction works, partially: across 100 wallets, 8 of 14 parameters are temporally stable (split-half ICC >= 0.5, bootstrap CI lower bound > 0.3; contrarian score reaches ICC ~ 0.9); wallets are identifiable from their profiles well above chance (top-1 retrieval 17-22% vs. 1% chance); and two of four pre-specified dimensions rank-correlate with future realized profit out-of-sample, though the correlations do not survive behavioral-confound controls. Prompt-level injection does not measurably transmit it: on a semantic embedding metric, structured injection shows no significant advantage over a length-matched control on any model, and the diversity it induces neither reduces ensemble error correlation nor improves Brier score -- a null that persists across exploratory checks on sampling temperature, profile diversity, and question difficulty. Measuring the prompts themselves locates the compression before the model: the structure-to-narrative translator emits near-uniform prompts whose spread does not track profile spread. We position Nous as measuring the cognitive-monoculture problem and the limits of a prompt-level remedy, motivating deeper, below-the-prompt injection (fine-tuning, activation steering). Code, frozen profiles, prompts, and model outputs: https://github.com/WillChienT/nous-paper

Inferring others' beliefs requires more than reading surface signals; it requires tracking who told them what, in what order, and how credibly. The Theory of Mind Utility (ToM-U) formalizes this epistemic state inference problem at the computational level of analysis, specifying what mentalizing computes and why without commitment to algorithmic or neural implementation. ToM-U achieves this by constructing Local Epistemic World Models (LEWMs) -- directed typed graphs that represent agents, state nodes, and the epistemic relationships among them -- and evaluating discrete candidate LEWMs against observed behavior until one achieves sufficient confidence. Five formal definitions specify the LEWM structure, agent node properties including ordered information access history, a bounded proliferation mechanism for recursive mentalizing, three inference procedures, and a residue function that captures the structured trace left by failed mentalizing attempts. ToM-U differs from Bayesian Theory of Mind and adjacent formal accounts, which presuppose rather than derive belief states, and from simulation theory and theory-theory, which lack a formal apparatus for epistemic state inference. The architecture generates directional, falsifiable predictions about mentalizing failure that follow from structural properties of the model rather than auxiliary assumptions, and positions ToM-U as a domain-agnostic mechanism upstream of goal inference and other downstream social cognitive processes.

Advancing scientific understanding through mechanistic modeling requires posing the right experimental questions to yield maximally informative data. To automate this pursuit within cognitive science, we introduce ATLAS (Active Theory Learning for Automated Science), an active learning framework for the data-driven discovery of interpretable behavioral models. ATLAS iterates between generating mechanistic hypotheses--instantiated as a diverse ensemble of sparse neural networks (Disentangled RNNs)--and designing experiments that optimally distinguish between them. We test this approach on the problem of recovering reinforcement learning agents from their behavior in bandit tasks. ATLAS designs varied sequences of qualitatively novel experiments with temporal structure tailored to underlying agent characteristics. The models trained on these experiments are evaluated against a comprehensive set of metrics for mechanistic modeling that capture behavioral, structural, and computational similarity. ATLAS achieves a 5-10x improvement in sample efficiency across all metrics compared to random experimentation, and its performance is further validated against expert-designed experiments derived from literature. These in silico results showcase ATLAS's potential to accelerate human-interpretable insights in cognitive science and other domains where scientific inquiry relies on discovering mechanistic models.

Predicting psychological traits from asynchronous video interviews (AVIs) is a challenging problem in AI-assisted interview assessment because labeled datasets are limited while each response contains high-dimensional visual, acoustic, and verbal signals. This paper presents our solution for the ACM Multimedia AVI Challenge 2026, which evaluates two tasks: Track1 predicts self-reported HEXACO personality traits from personality-related interview responses, and Track2 classifies cognitive ability levels from structured AVI responses. We treat the problem as a small-sample representation learning task. Instead of fine-tuning large pretrained models, we use frozen multimodal encoders, including CLIP for visual features, Whisper for acoustic features and transcripts, and RoBERTa, E5, and DeBERTaV3 for textual representations, followed by low-capacity downstream models. For Track1, our trait-specific regression and late-fusion system achieves an average validation MSE of 0.2696, improving over the official baseline of 0.3334. Ablation results show a three-step improvement from a global model (0.3189), to per-trait modeling (0.2871), to per-trait late fusion (0.2696), corresponding to a 19.1% relative MSE reduction over the official baseline. For Track2, a compact subject-attribute baseline reaches 0.5781 accuracy, while our multimodal ensemble reaches 0.5313, both above the official baseline of 0.4062. We interpret this result as evidence of possible subject-attribute shortcuts in the validation split rather than robust cognitive inference from AVI content. Overall, our findings suggest that AVI-based psychological assessment benefits from trait-specific multimodal modeling, but cognitive ability prediction requires careful control of dataset shortcuts.

The correspondence between large language models (LLMs) and the neural mechanisms underlying human higher-order cognition remains insufficiently characterized. Given that language and reasoning in the human brain appear dissociable, an open question is whether LLMs align with neural signals from reasoning-related regions and whether such signals can improve them. Here, focusing on deductive reasoning, we show that LLM internal representations are not only partially aligned with task-fMRI activity but can also be directly enhanced by these signals. Using a neural-predictivity metric, we find that LLMs explain a substantial fraction of the explainable variance in reasoning-related regions at the aggregate level, whereas predictivity within specific reasoning types is lower, indicating both alignment and divergence. Building on this, we propose a brain-guided framework: we steer model representations along directions induced by the joint structure of model and brain representations, applying intervention at inference and fine-tuning during training. We demonstrate that task-evoked brain signals can directly enhance LLM reasoning, yielding gains orthogonal to language-only supervision across 10 LLMs (1.5B-72B), with transfer across reasoning types and up to 13% absolute accuracy gain. Our results advance LLM-brain correspondences from correlation to guidance, establishing a brain-signal-driven pathway toward more robust and cognitively aligned AI.

The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has intensified debates about their significance for linguistic theory. These debates are commonly divided into three positions: insulationism, which regards LLMs as irrelevant to human language; eliminativism, which claims that LLMs can replace traditional linguistic theories; and conciliationism, which views them as useful tools for linguistic research. To clarify these positions, this paper applies the framework of modal modeling from the philosophy of science. We argue that LLMs possess genuine epistemic value as minimal models, even without structural correspondence to human cognition. In particular, they can provide how-possibly explanations (HPEs) by testing modal claims about language acquisition and linguistic competence. We then examine the conditions under which LLMs could qualify as how-actually explanations (HAEs) of human language, drawing on the mechanistic account of scientific explanation. We argue that current LLMs do not yet satisfy these requirements. On the basis of this analysis, we propose understanding the explanatory power of LLMs as lying on a continuum between HPEs and HAEs. This framework avoids both overstating and understating their explanatory significance and offers a more precise basis for evaluating the role of LLMs in the scientific study of language.

Humans process rich auditory environments through tightly integrated cognitive capabilities such as audio perception, audio reasoning, and memory. Despite recent progress in large audio-language models (LALMs) across speech understanding and multimodal audio reasoning, current evaluation paradigms remain largely task- or modality-centric, focusing on end performance while overlooking underlying auditory cognitive behaviours. This reveals a fundamental gap between how auditory cognition is understood in humans and how it is evaluated in LALMs, particularly in the lack of frameworks that operationalise cognitive principles beyond task-level metrics to systematically capture model behaviour. In this work, we introduce RAIL, a human-centric evaluation paradigm grounded in the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cognitive framework. RAIL formalises auditory cognition into five core capabilities and develop them into structured evaluation tasks that probe how models process, retain, and integrate auditory information. We further construct a cognitively grounded benchmark with principled data curation and human-aligned evaluation protocols. Evaluating 26 state-of-the-art LALMs, we find that current models exhibit highly uneven performance across cognitive abilities. RAIL establishes a new evaluation paradigm that moves beyond task-centric benchmarking toward cognitively grounded assessment of auditory intelligence.

Demand for older-adult and patient care is growing rapidly as populations age worldwide. Foundation models are increasingly being integrated into robots and interactive agents, with the promise of more flexible communication and personalized assistance. However, care settings require reliable and workflow-compatible systems with accountable human oversight, and it remains unclear whether current embodied systems can translate technical advances into clinical impact. This Perspective synthesizes foundation model-based care robots across three areas: design features, user experience, and evidence for care-related outcomes. Current systems most commonly use foundation models as conversational and reasoning layers within voice-centered socially assistive embodiments, while multimodal grounding and physical autonomy remain limited. Empirical evaluations report positive usability and engagement benefits, but reliability failures persist across the interaction pipeline such as hallucinations and conversational breakdowns. Evidence for care impact remains concentrated in proximal outcomes such as cognitive engagement and participation, with limited evidence for validated clinical or care-related changes. We argue that future research should transition toward care-specific evaluation standards, accountable autonomy, and integration into care workflows to support more responsive and responsible care technologies.

Long-term memory for an LLM agent is more than retrieving the right passage at the right time. Current memory systems collapse belief revision, causal coupling, and cross-domain abstraction into a single retrieval surface tuned for surface recall, and consequently struggle on implicit personalisation that requires reasoning over how a user has evolved. We propose DCPM, which reorganises agent memory along a cognitive capability hierarchy ascending from raw inputs and atomic facts, through diachronic belief trajectories and identity, to domain schemas, latent intentions and cross-domain patterns. The hierarchy is driven by two processes inheriting the architectural split of dual-process theory: a synchronous daytime writer (System1) that records belief revisions as doubly linked supersedes chains, and an asynchronous nighttime engine (System2) that induces schemas and intentions and sweeps for cross-domain collisions abstracted into higher-level core schemas. On LongMemEval, PersonaMem and PersonaMem-v2, enabling System2 contributes most where the benchmark rewards implicit cross-session inference (up to +5.20 on PersonaMem-v2) and least on span recall, matching the architectural prediction.

Creativity is a complex cognitive ability that relies on knowledge organisation and retrieval from semantic memory. Yet most research uses a single task to measure it, capturing only a fraction of this complexity. This study investigates multiplex networks - layered semantic networks obtained from six cognitive tasks - as a more comprehensive approach to modelling the associative knowledge underlying creativity. We collected data from N=518 individuals from four countries (Austria, USA, Singapore, Italy). From their responses to verbal fluency, sentence-chain, free association, and narrative writing tasks, we constructed semantic networks and assembled them in a multiplex structure. AI persona-based responses provided a comparison baseline. Structural reducibility analyses showed that different task layers captured distinct, non-redundant information about semantic organisation, supporting the use of multiple tasks over any single one. The networks from high- and low-creative groups remained structurally distinct, while AI-generated networks showed near-identical structures regardless of creativity group. Finally, we used 12 features (network measures, emotional scores, and spreading activation simulations) in a machine learning model using ridge regression to predict individual creativity scores. The combination of structurally similar layers, as identified in the previous stage, improved a proof-of-concept prediction accuracy by 50%. Structural measures showed the highest feature importance, with spreading activation dynamics providing additional predictive power. Together, these findings indicate that multiplex semantic networks capture a richer, cross-cultural picture of associative knowledge underlying creativity. We also release our diverse dataset and code to foster diverse computational approaches within the creativity community.

The emergence of large language model (LLM)-based agents and multi-agent systems has enabled a shift from narrow task automation to more autonomous decision-making. Despite progress in language generation, planning, tool use, and coordination, most agents still treat intelligence as prediction, optimization, and task completion. Human environments are social and normative, where people reason under bounded rationality, communicate in culturally situated language, and make decisions guided by values, beliefs, trust, and social norms. This survey argues that future AI agents, especially those acting on behalf of humans, must move beyond task competence toward human-centered capabilities. We review research across six areas: (1) evolution of intelligent agents, (2) human cognition and decision-making, (3) language, culture, and social context, (4) human values and belief systems, (5) human-agent collaboration, and (6) multi-agent coordination and modeling of human characteristics. We synthesize work from cognitive science, sociolinguistics, computational social science, and AI alignment, along with recent advances in LLM agents, cultural alignment benchmarks, preference learning, explainability, and agent societies. We identify a key gap: existing systems do not provide a unified framework integrating cognition, culture, values, and social behavior into autonomous agents. We conclude with directions for building culturally aware, value-aligned, cognitively grounded, and cooperative multi-agent systems.

Agentic tutoring systems introduce a coordination challenge: multiple agents may propose different but reasonable interventions, yet only one response can be delivered to the learner. In this paper, we study how voting protocols shape cooperation among four role-constrained pedagogical agents responsible for scaffolding, misconception, motivation, and metacognition. We compare four voting protocols -- simple, ranked, cumulative, and approval voting -- across two simulated tutoring environments on SciQ and HumanEval benchmarks. Rather than using voting as a simple aggregation step, we use it to analyze how collective decision rules shape coordination under partial pedagogical conflict. Across 1,200 simulated interactions, we find that agent deliberation and voting protocol type frequently change which response ultimately wins, showing that both meaningfully shape the collective decision. Different voting rules also produce distinct coordination behaviors, and even brief tutoring turns show measurable learning gains in simulated students. Overall, we show that protocol choice is associated with distinct coordination patterns among role-specialized pedagogical agents.

Alzheimer's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder, and its progression varies substantially across patients. Existing work aims to forecast patients' future cognitive state, with minimal focus on reconstructing the state from past visits. Furthermore, in current research, quantifying predictive uncertainty remains underexplored and relies on costly modalities such as MRI, PET, and CSF, limiting their deployment in resource-limited settings. In this research, our primary objectives are: First, bidirectional prediction of cognitive scores from irregular visits to present the complete disease trajectory. Second, to enable interpolation and extrapolation capabilities to assist clinicians in informed prognostic decision making, and third, to provide a well-calibrated uncertainty estimate for all predictions, and finally, to achieve the objectives using the modalities available during routine visits. We propose a unified framework, GNOVA: A GRU-Neural ODE Variational Autoencoder. The architecture combines a Gated Recurrent Unit encoder and a Neural ODE decoder within a variational autoencoder framework. In our work, we forecast the CDR-SB and MMSE Scores. The GRU encoder allows for any number of inputs at any time point. The Neural-ODE decoder performs continuous estimation, allowing interpolation and extrapolation at any desired time point. The Variational autoencoder allows for uncertainty estimation in predictions. We worked with 1,727 patients from the ADNI dataset over 10 years; the model achieved mean absolute errors of 1.35 and 2.28 for CDR-SB and MMSE scores, respectively, without requiring any neuroimaging or biomarker data. Feature-ablation studies revealed that age, BMI, and APOE4 status were strong predictors. The proposed framework enables the reconstruction of incomplete patient histories and the anticipation of future cognitive states.