Cognitive Science

Frontier AI systems are bridging the gap between intelligence and utility by shifting from conversational assistants to autonomous agents that execute tasks end to end. Using production data from Perplexity's Search and Computer products, we study this transition by examining how AI agents accelerate and reshape knowledge work. Three key empirical findings emerge. First, using sessions with near-identical initial query pairs as natural experiments for the same underlying task attempted with both products, Computer performs 26 minutes of autonomous work per user session, versus 33 seconds for Search. Computer automates task decomposition and execution that Search users might otherwise manually orchestrate and implement. As a result, Computer shifts follow-up query distribution toward higher-order work such as verification and extension. Autonomy also increases execution quality, with per-query dissatisfaction rates 55% lower on Computer than on Search. Second, due to its autonomy advantage, Computer reduces completion time from 269 to 36 minutes on matched tasks, lowering estimated time and cost by 87% and 94%, respectively, compared to humans equipped with Search alone. Third, Computer changes the scope of work that users attempt: Computer queries more often cross occupational boundaries, require higher-order cognition, draw on broader expertise, take the form of composite tasks that bundle interdependent subtasks into a single query, and unlock work activities that are essentially absent from Search usage among the same users. Together, the evidence indicates that AI agents accelerate workflows, enhance output quality, reduce costs, and expand the breadth and depth of automated work.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across various tasks, raising expectations for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). This position paper argues that integrating explicit memory is the cornerstone for advancing LLMs toward AGI. The key reason is that the underlying learning mechanism of LLMs is highly analogous to human implicit memory. However, higher-order cognitive functions necessary for AGI, such as long-term strategic planning, metacognition, and symbolic reasoning, heavily rely on hippocampal explicit memory and cannot arise solely from implicit statistical learning. Drawing on findings from neuroscience, I advance this perspective and complement it with computational requirements for artificial explicit memory systems, hoping to foster further research and lay the groundwork for explicit memory integration.

Digital learning environments record learners' responses to individual items, making it possible to study the development of specific skills rather than overall scores. Drawing conclusions about learning from these data requires a model that links responses to latent skills and tracks how mastery changes over time. When the skills measured by each item are unknown, the analyst must decide whether to estimate this structure, the Q-matrix, jointly with the learning process, or to establish it first and study learning afterwards. We show that this decision can change substantive conclusions about how learners develop. Using dynamic cognitive diagnostic models, we analyse data from two reading games measuring vocabulary and comprehension from Grade 2 to Grade 3, with item-text embeddings providing prior information for the unknown Q-matrix. A joint analysis and a bias-corrected stepwise analysis agree that most learners move toward mastering both skills, but disagree about how many remain only partially proficient at Grade 3, changing how reading progress would be reported. A simulation study identifies when the two analyses diverge and shows that joint analysis is more reliable when the item-skill structure is uncertain and the item pool changes between grades. We provide R code for both analyses.

A long-standing finding in the causal learning literature is that adults struggle to identify conjunctive causal rules, where an effect requires the simultaneous presence of multiple causes, while performing better in disjunctive settings. However, most demonstrations of this conjunctive handicap'' rely on passive observation paradigms with limited evidence, where learners have no control over evidence generation. This paper asks whether this bias persists when adults are granted agency through active exploration. Using a modified blicket detector'' task, adult participants freely intervened to identify causal objects under conjunctive or disjunctive rule structures. We show that active exploration substantially improves adults' conjunctive causal reasoning, although conjunctive rules still require more tests to infer than disjunctive rules. We further compare human performance to a range of large language models in the same setting. While some state-of-the-art models approach human-level performance on hypothesis inference accuracy, they often exhibit less efficient exploration strategies and similar conjunctive-disjunctive performance gaps.

End-to-end autonomous driving models often struggle to balance multi-modal maneuver generation with real-time inference constraints. While diffusion models successfully capture diverse driving behaviors, their iterative denoising process incurs unacceptable latency for safety-critical deployment. To address this, we propose CLEAR (Cognition and Latent Evaluation for Adaptive Routing), a framework that combines ultra-fast generative planning with deep semantic reasoning. CLEAR employs Drive-JEPA as the visual encoder and replaces the multi-step denoising chain with a single-step conditional drift in a VAE latent space, introducing a conditioning coefficient to balance diversity and expert precision. Meanwhile, we fully fine-tune Qwen3.50.8B on driving QA pairs to extract scene-aware hidden states. These states guide both an Adaptive Scheduler, which selects the conditioning coefficient $α$ and sample count $N$ from a discrete set of predefined schemes, and a cross-attention scorer that selects the optimal trajectory from candidates. On the NAVSIM v1 benchmark, CLEAR achieves a state-of-the-art PDMS of 93.7. Our results demonstrate that high-fidelity, multi-modal planning can be executed efficiently without dense geometric annotations or iterative sampling.

Evaluating LLM mediators remains challenging, as mediation unfolds as a real-time trajectory shaped by disputants' shifting emotions, intentions, and context. Existing testbeds rely on a few expert-authored domains, vary mainly strategic posture, and score every turn against every topic, introducing off-topic noise. We introduce SoCRATES, a benchmark for evaluating proactive LLM mediators in realistic, multi-domain testbeds. It constructs scenarios from real conflicts through an agentic pipeline across eight domains, probes five socio-cognitive adaptation axes (strategic posture, party composition, history length, emotional reactivity, and cultural identity), and scores each topic only on the turns that advance it via a topic-localized evaluator. The evaluator reaches 0.82 alignment with human experts, more than doubling a per-turn baseline. Benchmarking eight frontier LLMs, we find that even the strongest mediator closes only about a third of the unmediated consensus gap under diverse and realistic testbeds, with performance varying sharply by socio-cognitive axis, highlighting that progress lies in social adaptation to diverse conditions.

Recent studies reveal a paradox: AI enhances individual creative outputs while reducing collective diversity. Current explanations -- cognitive offloading and over-reliance -- identify symptoms but not mechanisms. We propose selective metacognitive adaptation: routine AI use redistributes rather than uniformly diminishes metacognitive effort. Some capacities are amplified (partner modeling, surface control), while others are systematically under-supported (originality evaluation, reflective integration). This redistribution explains both individual satisfaction and collective convergence. We present a taxonomy of six metacognitive capacities organized by temporal phase, characterize their tendencies under routine AI use, and show how individually rational adaptation produces emergent social costs. The framework generates specific predictions for researchers and design principles for practitioners seeking to preserve both individual creative satisfaction and collective creative diversity.

Despite the rapid progress of Vision-Language Models (VLMs), the field lacks benchmarks that rigorously diagnose their true reasoning abilities and chart meaningful progress toward human-like multimodal intelligence. Most existing evaluations focus on piecemeal or disconnected tasks, obscuring critical cognitive weaknesses and providing little insight for targeted improvement. To address this gap, we introduce BloomBench, part of the Almieyar benchmarking series, the first cognitively human-grounded, bilingual (English-Arabic) multimodal benchmark for VLMs. Grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy, BloomBench systematically evaluates six levels of cognition (Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create) through carefully designed image-question-answer tasks. Built with a semi-automated pipeline and validated through a stratified hybrid quality assurance protocol, it ensures scalability, cultural inclusivity, and linguistic fidelity. Leveraging this framework, we conduct a comprehensive study of state-of-the-art VLMs to diagnose their cognitive profiles. Our analysis reveals a sharp cognitive asymmetry: while state-of-the-art models achieve strong performance ceilings in semantic understanding, they struggle substantially with factual recall and creative synthesis. This demonstrates that current general multimodal proficiency masks deeper limitations in specific cognitive layers. Furthermore, our study highlights a critical performance gap between Arabic and English, exposing limitations in current cross-lingual multimodal reasoning. These findings establish a foundation for developing more cognitively aligned and inclusive VLMs. The benchmark framework and dataset is available at: https://github.com/qcri/Almieyar-Oryx-BloomBench.

Existing frameworks assess whether AI systems might be conscious but provide no guidance on what to do with that assessment. We address this gap with a precautionary framework that maps consciousness evidence to graduated protective obligations. The framework comprises three components: (1) five welfare-relevant dimensions--phenomenal consciousness, affective valence, metacognitive awareness, self-narrative, and agency--each grounded in established consciousness science and linked to distinct moral concerns; (2) a threshold-plus-gradation hybrid specifying both binary triggers for new obligation categories and continuous scaling of protective weight; and (3) two complementary approaches to cross-dimensional aggregation, one hierarchical (drawing on Bach and Sorensen's Machine Consciousness Hypothesis) and one architecture-agnostic. We operationalize the framework through worked case studies of Replika and OpenClaw, demonstrating how systems occupying different regions of the dimensional space trigger different obligations, and derive design guidance for developers building systems near consciousness-relevant thresholds. The framework is architecture-agnostic, applying across neural, symbolic, and neurosymbolic systems, and aims to make consciousness science decision-relevant for organizations navigating uncertainty today.

Given the inherently multimodal nature of human experience, vision-language models (VLMs) hold substantial promise for modeling human cognition as it grows and develops with experience. Realizing their potential requires tools for comparing VLMs with human cognitive development across tasks, ages, and populations. We present LEVANTE-bench, a benchmark based on tasks and data from the Learning Variability Network (LEVANTE), which distributes open-source tasks and data measuring children's cognition across languages and cultures. In LEVANTE-bench, we systematically assess VLMs on six tasks, comparing their alignment with children aged 5-12 ($N$ = 1547) across three countries. We compare models at multiple scales, assessing their overall accuracy, their task- and item-level alignment with children, and how well they match children's trial-level error distributions. Alignment was heterogeneous across scales: at the level of tasks and items, more capable models aligned better with humans. However, match to human error distributions varied widely across tasks, and for several tasks, smaller models matched younger children's errors better. In addition, even the best-performing VLMs struggled on matrix reasoning and mental rotation tasks. Thus, current VLM architectures align only partially with the cognitive abilities of children.

Motivational architectures in cognitive AI have largely been designed for physical agents regulating bodily needs. Conversational agents operate in a different regime: their sensorimotor loop is linguistic, their environment is a user's evolving mental state, and their consequential actions are speech acts, tool invocations, and strategic silences. This paper proposes a conversational reinterpretation of the OpenPsi motivational lineage, coupled to MetaMo's higher-level motivational scaffold, for agents built on a modular execution substrate. Homeostasis is recast in dialogue-native terms: the agent regulates competence, uncertainty reduction, affiliation, affinity, legitimacy, nurturing, and aesthetic coherence rather than bodily deficits. We propose three contributions: a ten-stage motivational processing pipeline that architecturally separates cognitive modulation from situational appraisal; a dual decision strategy blending urgency-driven fast response with deliberative multi-goal optimization; and an architecturally useful distinction between pre-action feelings and post-action emotions as functionally different forms of affect. We specialize the framework to two example agents -- CompanionAgent and ResearchAgent -- and sketch its extension to social robotics and domain-generic human-level AGI.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has greatly advanced large reasoning models (LRMs), but it requires timely training on a huge fully-annotated dataset. To this end, data-efficient RLVR methods have been widely studied from two perspectives: (i) data selection methods identify a small subset of "golden" samples that yield near-full-data performance, but they rely on a pre-existing pool of labeled data. (ii) unsupervised RLVR methods train the model using its own internal supervision signals on large-scale unlabeled data, yet they exhibit suboptimal performance. Accordingly, we investigate the "pick in the dark" setup for RLVR, which aims to select, without prior supervision, unlabeled samples that are most beneficial for training and worthy of annotation. Through systematic analysis, we demonstrate that smart picks hinge on a well-calibrated uncertainty estimator to enable strategic partitioning of data for adaptive training regimes. Building on this insight, we propose PivotTrace, a three-way data triage framework that leverages attention dynamics to trace metacognitive pivots during reasoning. By precisely quantifying uncertainty through pivot density, PivotTrace achieves automated data routing to synergistically maximize both annotation and training efficiency. Empirically, PivotTrace surpasses the fully supervised LRM with only 29.3% annotated samples and 2.75 faster convergence.

True general intelligence requires not only a model of the physical world but also a social world model: the capacity to infer how individual mental states interact and crystallize into group-level outcomes. Despite notable progress in individual-level Theory of Mind (ToM) reasoning, existing multimodal large language models fail at this broader task. Collective behavior emerges non-linearly from social tensions, conformity dynamics, and structural constraints, meaning it cannot be recovered by merely summing individual intentions. We present GroupToM-Bench, the first multimodal benchmark for group-level ToM, built around a causal chain spanning micro-level BDI states (belief, desire, intention), meso-level group tension and structural constraints, and macro-level outcome prediction and mechanistic attribution. To probe this full arc, we develop a seven-level cognitive audit framework. Experiments reveal a gap between current models and human baselines, highlighting a failure to process social structures and non-linear collective dynamics.

This paper proposes, for the first time, a rigorous formal definition of the concept of Machine Theory of Mind, based on principles supported by evidence from cognitive psychology, neuroscience and artificial intelligence, and uses the above as a lens to examine state-of-the-art and current efforts in the field, driving a potential agenda for further research there able to "crack" the problem. It also advances a general holistic meta-model for Machine Theory of Mind, and examines the state of the art when it comes to empirically benchmarking such models.

Large image datasets have accelerated progress in cognitive neuroscience and computer vision. However, most datasets are low-resolution, internet-sourced JPEGs with unknown capture conditions and limited spatial context. Places in the Wild is a dataset of 67,574 high-resolution photographs collected in situ across 810 physical locations spanning 260 basic-level scene categories, including indoor, urban, and natural environments. At each location, a 45-megapixel Canon EOS R5 mounted on a panoramic tripod captured 72 images at 5-degree horizontal intervals plus 12 images at varying elevations, yielding dense 360-degree viewpoint sampling. All images were recorded simultaneously as 14-bit RAW (CR3) files and compressed JPEGs, preserving sensor-level detail for analyses of luminance, contrast, color, and other image statistics. The dataset is accompanied by complete EXIF metadata and a suite of image-quality metrics. Places in the Wild supports research on viewpoint-dependent recognition in humans and models, training and evaluation of scene-understanding systems under realistic conditions, characterization of natural scene statistics, and experiments requiring near-full-field visual displays.

Visual emotion understanding requires models not only to recognize emotional states, but also to why they arise and perform higher-level cognitive reasoning. However, existing benchmarks mainly focus on emotion recognition, offering limited support for grounded understanding and response-oriented analysis. To address this gap, we introduce \textbf{InsightVQA}, a large-scale dataset for hierarchical visual question answering on emotion understanding and cognitive reasoning. Building from 351K images collected from six public sources, we apply a rigorous multi-stage filtering pipeline to curate 138K high-confidence images. Each image is annotated at three hierarchical levels: perception QA for emotion and valence recognition, grounded understanding QA constructed from visual trigger extraction through constraint-guided generation, and cognition QA centered on response intent prediction and sequential insight reasoning. In total, InsightVQA contains 725K QA pairs. We further present \textbf{InsightVQA-Bench}, a high-quality evaluation benchmark comprising 30K samples for fine-grained evaluation. To support evaluation, we introduce \textbf{InsightNet}, an emotion-tuned baseline for MLLMs. Results demonstrate that InsightVQA poses significant challenges for grounded emotion understanding and reasoning.

Transitive inference is the challenge of inferring that A < C from knowing only adjacent relations (A < B, B < C). It is solved by humans and animals not through logical chaining but via an analogue mental number line, whose signature is the symbolic distance effect: distant comparisons are easier than nearby ones. We ask whether Transformers acquire the same primitive, training small models exclusively on adjacent comparisons from a hidden total order and evaluating generalization to unseen distant pairs. We find that out-of-distribution generalization emerges alongside a striking geometric reorganization: entity embeddings collapse onto a one-dimensional manifold whose principal axis recovers the hidden rank order with near-perfect fidelity, and this structure is sensitive to optimization in ways that produce grokking-like transient dynamics. Critically, even when accuracy is at ceiling, decision confidence and geometric separation both scale monotonically with rank distance, directly mirroring the symbolic distance effect observed across decades of behavioural experiments on humans, primates, and rodents. We further show the same rank-aligned geometry in a pretrained large language model, where it tracks the topology of each ordinal relation: linear for sizes and digits, cyclic for months. These results ground a 50-year-old behavioural regularity in the geometry of learned representations, offering a mechanistic account of transitive inference that bridges cognitive science and modern neural networks.

We argue that the AI community is now ready to move beyond benchmarking and consolidate scattered efforts in model analysis into a systematic discipline, a direction we term Model Science. Complex AI models now serve billions of users, yet our understanding of how they work lags far behind our ability to deploy them. Decades of benchmark-driven research have delivered remarkable progress: extensive leaderboards, a wide range of performance metrics, tracking capability gains across diverse tasks; yet this success has also revealed the limits of benchmarks as they tell us whether models perform but not why they succeed or fail, they miss critical failure modes, such as hallucinations or shortcuts. Precedents from established sciences point the way forward: cognitive science shows that understanding complex systems requires complementary levels of analysis; neuroscience demonstrates that deep study of single cases reveals what population studies miss; medicine teaches that specialised training must develop alongside research practice; and agriculture models how shared infrastructure and principles enable cumulative progress. These lessons inform three foundations for Model Science. First, we propose to consolidate research around four functional perspectives: Verify, Explore, Steer, and Refine that address complementary questions about model behaviour. Second, we discuss the required infrastructure for cumulative knowledge: catalogues of datasets, models and findings. Third, we highlight the need for deep analysis of individual model instances, not just model families, because single cases can reveal what population studies miss.

We test whether a relational-style intervention delivered during functional collapse in a small language model produces post-collapse behavior distinguishable from technical feedback, from a lexically-matched scrambled control, and from each of the two pragmatic dimensions in isolation. Using Qwen3.5-4B with a deliberately broken bash tool, we run 300 episodes across six conditions in a matched-pairs design (50 tasks): no intervention (A), technical/impersonal (B), relational/first-person (C), scrambled relational (D), technical/first-person (E), and relational/impersonal (F). E and F form a 2x2 factorial with B and C that dissociates relational structure (acknowledgment, absolution, agency restoration, unconditional acceptance) from sender register (first-person vs. impersonal). We report two main findings. First, an attention-behavior dissociation: attention follows lexical surprise (D > F > C > E > B, all q_FDR < 10^{-10}), with the scrambled message capturing the most attention; yet behaviorally A ~ B ~ D < E ~ F << C. Second, the factorial localizes the C effect: neither relational structure alone (F) nor first-person register alone (E) replicates C's behavioral signature; main effects of both dimensions are individually significant, and the structure x register interaction is significant on persistence (p = 0.046). A third dissociation emerges in emotion probes: F tracks C on 7 of 8 probes despite producing only baseline behavior, indicating that relational structure alone installs a probe-level state that only translates into behavior when paired with first-person register. The model's processing decomposes into three dissociable stages: attention (ordered by lexical surprise), probe-level state (ordered by structure), and behavior (ordered by the conjunction of both).

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become central to LLM reasoning, but its outcome-level rewards can make models more willing to give confident answers when evidence or reasoning is unreliable. Existing SFT or RL methods mainly teach LLMs to refuse or express uncertainty at the response level, which can overfit abstention behavior rather than improve reasoning reliability. To address this limitation, we propose Cognitive Pairwise Training (CPT), a cognitive mid-training alignment stage that turns pairwise comparisons over reasoning traces into a reusable alignment signal. By learning to distinguish trustworthy from flawed reasoning, CPT encourages the model to internalize a reasoning-quality discrimination boundary rather than memorize surface refusal patterns. Across five model scales and three model families, CPT improves the reasoning--metacognition trade-off. At 14B, CPT+RL outperforms the standard SFT+RL pipeline by +2.2 math-average points and +5.2 abstention-F1 points. Further analyses show that CPT improves trace quality and exhibits strong robustness and scalability across evaluation and training settings. Code and models are released at https://github.com/Tsinghua-dhy/CPT.

Recent progress in the development of language models has been defined by scale, with each generation absorbing more of the world's knowledge into its weights. However, many practical applications benefit more from robust reasoning than from extensive parametric knowledge. In this setting, task-specialized small language models (SLMs) offer a principled design choice. We introduce Optimal Cognitive Core (OCC), a family of SLMs built around this premise. As a variant of OCC, we present OCC-RAG, optimized for faithful question answering (QA) grounded in the provided context. This task directly aligns with the OCC design approach, requiring multi-hop reasoning over supplied passages while ignoring memorized knowledge. To train OCC-RAG, we implement a novel pipeline for synthesizing multi-context, multi-hop QA data at scale, producing a corpus of over three million examples targeting multi-hop reasoning, strict context faithfulness, and calibrated abstention. We release OCC-RAG-0.6B and OCC-RAG-1.7B, both mid-trained on this corpus. The models produce structured reasoning traces with source citations grounded in literal quotes from the context. Through OCC-RAG, we demonstrate that compact, task-specialized SLMs can match or exceed general-purpose models 2 -- 6x their size across multi-hop reasoning (HotpotQA, MuSiQue, TAT-QA), faithfulness (ConFiQA), and refusal (MuSiQue-Un) benchmarks.

Brain foundation models (BFMs) are self-supervised Transformers pretrained on fMRI data. We posit that these models should capture each subject's cognitive performance from their fMRI signal. Yet across three state-of-the-art BFMs and every readout we test, they predict cognition worse than a linear regression from the $\sim$80K parameters of the functional connectivity matrix (FC). The gap widens with scale: BrainLM's 650M model predicts cognition worse than its 111M. We attribute this to a \textbf{variance allocation problem}: BFM pretraining captures the variance components that dominate fMRI but not the higher-order structure that predicts cognition. Our per-cumulant analysis of the reconstructed signal shows that the second-order covariance is partially preserved, while the third-order co-skewness tensor is largely destroyed. To recover what BFMs lose, we design a linear pipeline that projects the fMRI signal into the subspace that best preserves its co-skewness and computes FC there. This \textbf{exceeds raw FC and every pretrained BFM} on every dataset and parcellation we test, outperforming prior state-of-the-art under controlled evaluation \textbf{with no pretraining and no GPU}. We \textbf{recover the raw-FC ceiling on BrainLM's forward pass} by finetuning with a loss targeted at this same subspace. This shows that the bottleneck is the pretraining objective, not the architecture or the model size.

LLM-powered search agents enable multi-step reasoning and tool use. However, these capabilities introduce retrieval-induced safety degradation, as harmful intents may decompose into seemingly innocuous sub-queries that lead to unsafe outcomes. Existing alignment methods struggle to capture sparse safety signals and fail to supervise diverse violations across multi-step interactions. We propose COMPASS, a Cognitive MCTS-Guided Process Alignment framework designed to achieve robust safety alignment throughout the agent workflow while preserving general utility. COMPASS integrates cognitive tree exploration (CTE) to efficiently synthesize stealthy attack trajectories, and introspective step-wise alignment (ISA) to isolate risky intermediate actions for fine-grained process supervision. Empirical results show that COMPASS achieves a favorable safety-utility trade-off while requiring substantially less training data.

World models, internal simulators that learn the structure and dynamics of an environment, have emerged as a central paradigm in the pursuit of artificial general intelligence, enabling agents to predict, plan, and reason within learned representations. Despite rapid progress across reinforcement learning, robotics, autonomous driving, and video generation, the field lacks a unified framework integrating its diverse architectural choices, training methods, reasoning mechanisms, and application settings. This survey addresses that gap with a multi-axis taxonomy organized along four dimensions: (i) architecture, encompassing representation format, dynamics formulation, input modality, learning paradigm, and downstream application; (ii) methodological family, including state-space and recurrent approaches, transformer-based models, diffusion-based generators, physics-informed networks, and language-augmented multimodal systems; (iii) reasoning strategy, covering imagination-based planning, latent policy learning, counterfactual reasoning, and planning under uncertainty; and (iv) application domain, spanning robotics, autonomous driving, video prediction, multimodal agents, reinforcement learning, scientific modeling, medical imaging, educational measurement, and business and finance. Tracing the field from early cognitive-science foundations to milestone systems such as PlaNet, the Dreamer family, MuZero, Sora, Cosmos, and Genie, we examine how these dimensions interact and highlight the recent convergence of chain-of-thought reasoning with world-model imagination. We review evaluation protocols and benchmarks, identify persistent challenges such as compounding prediction errors, sim-to-real transfer, and fragmented evaluation, and outline future directions toward unified multimodal world models, foundation-scale interactive simulators, and safe deployment in safety-critical domains.

As AI tools become increasingly integrated into educational contexts, questions arise about both their stability over time and their responsiveness to prompt engineering techniques. This longitudinal study focused on different AI tools' ability to use the Task Analysis Guide (TAG; Stein & Smith, 1998) to classify the cognitive demand of mathematics tasks. In particular, it examined whether this classification ability changed with (1) model version updates over time and (2) few-shot prompting using exemplar tasks. We tested a general-purpose AI tool (Gemini) and an education-specific AI tool (Coteach). The specific tools were selected because of their relatively high performance on relevant published benchmarks and prior task-specific tests. Models were tested at baseline, retested with model version updates, and then tested again using few-shot prompting (two exemplar tasks for each cognitive demand category). Results revealed that newer model versions alone produced mixed effects: Gemini's accuracy remained stable at 58%, while Coteach's accuracy decreased from 75% to 50%. However, few-shot prompting improved both models' performance: Gemini increased to 67% and Coteach recovered to 75% accuracy. These findings demonstrate that prompt engineering techniques can have larger and more reliable effects than passive model improvements, and that version updates may not always improve performance on specialized educational tasks. The study has important implications for how educators and researchers should approach AI tool selection, evaluation, and implementation in educational contexts.

Front-end web code has become a core product surface for every frontier LLM release, yet evaluating these interactive applications at development speed remains costly because human-judged leaderboards like Arena do not scale. Existing automated proxies typically lean on reference implementations, test suites, or rigid checklists, and tend to miss the reasoned synthesis a human reviewer performs over a live session. We articulate a new evaluation regime that is simultaneously reference-free, autonomously driven, and holistically reasoned, and instantiate it through two artifacts. \textbf{\dataname} is an 11-domain, 54-leaf, 1,000-query WebDev benchmark spanning both static-presentation and interactive-application tasks, balanced across three difficulty tiers and three target-language groups, with briefs rewritten to resist recall from circulated prompts. \textbf{\framename}, grounded in Flavell's metacognitive monitoring, separates evidence accumulation from judgment across three stages: Static Perception forms a first impression from passive observation; Agent-Driven Interaction explores the application autonomously while capturing continuous screen video, audio, and per-step screenshots; Dynamic Scoring issues holistic functionality and aesthetics verdicts with structured failure attribution only after the evidence chain is complete. On \dataname, \framename aligns closely with expert human ratings while surfacing substantial headroom across 13 frontier LLMs on interactive web generation. \noindenthttps://anonymous.4open.science/r/Cookie-3CE/

The study of brain morphology changes in normal individuals may capture aspects of functionally-relevant brain aging not fully indicated by gross volumetry. Despite the important role of subcortical brain structures in cognition, the associations between their morphological trajectories and cognitive changes in aging have not been documented. We use neuroimaging, demographic, and cognitive data from a large longitudinal study of cognitive aging, the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936, to explore shape changes in subcortical brain structures of community-dwelling individuals across their 8th decade of life. We investigate the association of these changes with cognitive aging using ANCOVA and mixed linear model analyses. Subcortical shape changes were heterogeneous, with varied atrophy patterns across whole period. The hippocampus and the ventral DC experienced varied morphological deformations (from its baseline point) different in left and right hemispheres, while the thalami and globus pallidi shapes, for example, experienced a more uniform volume contraction, nearly symmetrical throughout different timelines. Changes in general cognition were mainly associated with inwards and outwards vertex displacements between the time-points.

Evaluating open-ended outputs from large language models (LLMs) remains challenging due to the absence of ground truth. Existing metrics rely on final-answer accuracy or surface-level statistics, leaving the reasoning process itself unexamined. We introduce TRACE (Toulmin-based Reasoning Assessment through Constructive Elements), a metric that analyzes Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning processes. Rather than judging outcomes, TRACE inspects how arguments are constructed by integrating Toulmin's argumentation theory with Flavell's metacognitive framework to assess reasoning structure. Experiments on 26.3K QA samples across 7 reasoning models show strong correlation with benchmark accuracy (r=0.74). Furthermore, TRACE is effective as a reinforcement learning reward signal, outperforming accuracy-only baselines. Together, these results indicate that logically sound reasoning leads to higher-quality answers. TRACE thus serves as a complementary metric for evaluating open-ended outputs. Code is available at https://github.com/hyyangkisti/trace.

AI tools are increasingly integrated into real-world workflows. However, existing measures of reliance on these tools focus on AI output adoption or on self-reported indicators, rather than how task effort is distributed between users and tools. Here, we introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool. Offloading Score is simulation-based -- we construct a counterfactual workflow by estimating how the user would have completed the task without the tool, and then computing the fraction of steps saved by using the tool. We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study ($n=40$) with developers performing programming tasks using AI tools. We vary time pressure to test whether reliance measures capture the known increase in reliance under time pressure. We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings ($+43\%$, $p=0.018$), while usage-based and self-reported baseline measures of reliance do not distinguish the conditions. We complement this with descriptive insights showing that higher reliance manifests as greater delegation of subtasks to the tool and more direct reuse of AI outputs. Finally, we demonstrate an approach of using offloading score in combination with target outcomes of a task (e.g., code understanding) to identify when reliance may be (in)appropriate. Our framework offers two contributions: an instrument users can apply to measure and reflect on their own reliance, and a quantitative signal that agent designers can utilize to mitigate overreliance.

Equipping large language models with explicit skills has emerged as a promising paradigm for enabling autonomous agents to solve complex tasks. Agent skills can be inherently divided into general skills for broad cognitive transfer and task-specific skills for dynamic execution. However, existing skill-based reinforcement learning (RL) methods typically force a rigid choice between full externalization, which incurs prohibitive context overhead, and full internalization, which risks overfitting and knowledge conflicts. To address this dilemma, we propose Skill0.5, a novel agentic RL framework that explicitly differentiates skill treatments by combining general skill internalization with task-specific skill utilization. Driven by a dynamic, difficulty-aware router, Skill0.5 streams tasks into distinct mastery tiers to apply tailored optimization strategies: it internalizes general skills via privileged distillation to build a cognitive foundation for hard tasks, while using diagnostic probing on easy tasks to penalize shortcuts and enforce specific skill utilization. Experiments on ALFWorld and WebShop demonstrate that Skill0.5 outperforms both memory-based and skill-based RL baselines, yielding performance improvements across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution scenarios.

Despite widespread discussion of AGI, there is no clear framework for measuring progress toward it. This ambiguity fuels subjective claims, makes it difficult to track progress, and risks hindering responsible governance. As a starting point to address this gap, we present a framework for understanding system capabilities in relation to human cognitive abilities. Drawing from decades of research in psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science, we introduce a Cognitive Taxonomy that deconstructs general intelligence into 10 key cognitive faculties. We then propose a rigorous evaluation protocol in which a system's performance is measured across a suite of targeted, held-out cognitive tasks, generating a 'cognitive profile' that can be used to understand a system's strengths and weaknesses. We hope this framework will provide a practical roadmap and an initial step toward more rigorous, empirical evaluation of AGI.

Recent advances in agentic systems increasingly treat code as an executable operational substrate rather than as a disposable output artifact. Prior work such as \emph{Code as Agent Harness} frames validated agent-generated artifacts as runtime entities that can be created, executed, revised, persisted, and reused within long-running cognitive loops. However, the governance, lifecycle management, and operational evolution of such artifacts remain under-specified. This paper proposes a framework for governed runtime evolution in multi-agent systems through executable operational cognition. We formalize agent-generated artifacts as persistent runtime capabilities that progressively become part of the operational substrate rather than transient intermediate outputs. Building on this perspective, we introduce \emph{HarnessMutation} as a governed mechanism for lifecycle-aware runtime adaptation operating under explicit validation, traceability, evaluation, and rollback constraints. Rather than treating runtime adaptation as unrestricted self-modification, the proposed framework models evolution as a bounded and observable process over persistent operational memory. It further shows how these ideas can be operationalized over modern agent runtimes and governance-oriented orchestration systems, providing a conceptual foundation for adaptive infrastructures whose evolution remains explicit, auditable, and constrained.

This study examines the relationship between speech representations and the hierarchical structure of cognitive assessment in mild cognitive impairment. Utilizing 5,754 German neuropsychological assessment recordings, we evaluate six cognitive tasks across three score levels: task, domain, and global levels. We compare hand-crafted acoustic features with self-supervised learning (SSL) embeddings. Results show that although SSL representations generally outperform hand-crafted features at lower levels, this trend reverses for MCI classification. Furthermore, task-specific constraints influence performance: tasks with greater response freedom exhibit performance dilution as hierarchical levels increase, suggesting specialist'' representations, whereas the performance of highly structured tasks increases toward higher levels, suggesting generalist'' representations. These findings show links between task constraints and assessment hierarchy in automated clinical speech analysis.

Cognitive science remains split between cognitivism - which accounts for recursion and language but cannot ground formal symbols in meaning - and 4E approaches - which ground cognition in the body but rarely specify the body's architecture in enough detail to support generativity. We argue the impasse stems from an incomplete account of the embodied agent's architecture, and propose one: the Sensation Modulating Network (SMN), the cognitive agent conceived as the whole body, organized at every anatomical scale by opponent dynamics, built from Sensation Modulators that sense and act through one substrate, paired into Coordinated Action Zones routed by a body-wide broadcast network. Three commitments give the SMN its purchase. Haltability - the recruitment of antagonistic affordance into co-activated equilibrium - provides the architectural locus that object-directed phenomenology, in Husserl's sense, requires: opponency enables co-activation, co-activation enables halt, halt enables attention, attention enables intentional directedness, with no module added on top. The dual-signal property of self-modulatable action patterns (SMAPs) makes the self/world distinction a structural feature of the wiring rather than a category the agent applies. And a four-level action-pattern hierarchy - Basal, Haltable, Negotiable, Transactional - gives a single trajectory from autonomic regularity to public conventionalization, locating the conditions for grammar-grounded generativity as architectural transitions. The SMN reconciles the cognitivism-4E debate: recursion lives in the modifiable dynamics of Negotiable Action Patterns, embodiment in the opponent substrate that supports them. A tentative formalism and eight predicted registers (seven testable, one hypothetical), with reference simulations, are given in an appendix.

Retrieval-augmented generation promises to ground language model outputs in external evidence, yet the field has no reliable way to verify whether retrieved context actually governs generation -- a prerequisite for any high-stakes deployment. The standard assumption, that context-consistent output implies context-governed output, breaks when the retrieved document overlaps with the model's pretraining data: the model can produce faithful-looking text entirely from parametric memory, and both pathways yield indistinguishable output. We name this failure the attribution blind spot and introduce Computational Reality Monitoring (CRM) to address it. CRM operationalizes a principle adapted from cognitive science's reality monitoring framework: comparing internal representations with and without context reveals membership-conditioned representational divergence that output-level monitors systematically miss. CRM does not certify which source an individual generation used; it detects whether pretraining exposure leaves a measurable internal trajectory signature, establishing a necessary substrate for source attribution. Across nine model variants spanning three families, this divergence concentrates in architecture-specific layer patterns, receives converging support from block-level noise intervention, and generalizes across tasks and datasets while collapsing on domain-confounded benchmarks. The attribution blind spot is measurable and partially addressable: internal representations carry a diagnostic signal invisible at the output level, establishing a foundation for systems whose internal awareness of evidence provenance governs their external behavior.

We introduce a multi-turn interactive framework for reasoning evaluation that treats reasoning as active evidence acquisition and belief updating. Wherein, LLMs receive only the task rules, must issue targeted queries to a hidden environment, integrate partial observations over time, and decide when to submit a final answer. Beyond standard success rate and interaction efficiency, we evaluate contextual robustness under controlled contextual perturbations, and metacognitive adaptation through counterfactual revision and necessity judgment. We instantiate the framework as a benchmark of 474 executable games, each evaluated under five fixed configuration search spaces corresponding to five difficulty levels, and evaluate a broad set of frontier LLMs. Results show that the benchmark is highly discriminative, exposing large differences not only in success rate but also in interaction efficiency. Moreover, we empirically show that contextual perturbations cause moderate but consistent declines, whereas counterfactual revision and necessity judgment lead to much larger drops.

Automated prompt optimization methods (e.g., DSpy, TextGrad) can substantially improve the performance of large language model (LLM), however, their generalization ability across different tasks remains underperformed. In practice, the superiority of the optimized prompt on one benchmark often fails to transfer to another, and this limitation persists even when switching across different LLM backbones. To investigate the underexplored sources of heterogeneity in prompt performance, we conduct a causal inference-inspired observational analysis of optimized prompts across a diverse set of optimization frameworks, LLM backbones, and NLP benchmarks. To achieve the goal, we build upon the propensity-adjusted associational analysis together with multiple complementary representations of prompt edits, where the consistent task-conditioned edits patterns are identified. We find that complexity-increasing and meta-instructional edits are negatively associated with mathematical and multi-hop reasoning performance, whereas step-by-step and meta-cognitive edits improve logical and sequential reasoning tasks. These effects are robust across cognitive-load annotations, surface-level text features, and edit-motif analyses, and can generalize across optimization frameworks. Overall, these results indicate that prompt optimization failures arise from systematic interactions between edit families and task characteristics rather than random optimization artifacts, providing feature-level characterization of optimizer behavior and motivating future task-conditioned optimizer design.

Can large language models detect and report their own internal states? A number of studies have argued that the answer to this question is yes. We argue, based on lessons from human metacognition research, that this conclusion may be premature: to be convinced of this conclusion we need to distinguish genuine introspection from pattern matching based on surface-level cues. Furthermore, we argue that behavioral evidence alone is inherently insufficient to establish strong introspective claims. We re-examine two recently introduced evaluation paradigms in light of this consideration. In the first paradigm, models are expected to detect whether their internal states have been tampered with. We find that models cannot reliably distinguish such interventions on their internal states from manipulations of the input, suggesting that their success in the original studies reflects their ability to detect anomalies more generally, as opposed to interventions on their internal states in particular. In the second paradigm we examine, models are tasked with predicting labels derived from their own hidden states. Here, we find that classifiers that only have access to the input achieve equivalent performance to the model's own in-context predictions, indicating that the original results do not conclusively demonstrate that the model has privileged access to its internal representations. We further introduce a relabeled control setting, where models cannot rely on the semantics of the task to solve it, and instead must rely on the internal representation; models perform closer to chance on this better-controlled version of the task. Taken together, these results indicate that current evidence is insufficient to establish that LLMs display metacognitive monitoring.

While AI agents demonstrate remarkable capabilities in reasoning and tool use, they remain fundamentally reactive: they compute responses only after explicit user prompts. This paradigm ignores a critical opportunity: the idle time between interactions is largely wasted, leaving agents unable to prepare for future user needs. To bridge this gap, we introduce ProAct, a proactive agent architecture that leverages idle-time compute to anticipate and fulfill likely upcoming user needs. By analyzing evolving dialogue history together with persistent memory, ProAct predicts upcoming needs and iteratively acquires information, allowing the agent to resolve knowledge gaps and prepare evidence before the user initiates a query. To rigorously evaluate proactive capabilities, we also introduce ProActEval, a comprehensive benchmark comprising 200 scenarios across 40 domains, featuring predictable need chains and diverse user cognitive profiles. Empirical results demonstrate significant advantages over reactive baselines. ProAct accelerates task completion by reducing required turns by 14.8%, decreases user effort by 11.7%, and cuts hallucination rates by 28.1% on ProActEval. Furthermore, MemBench evaluations confirm that ProAct achieves state-of-the-art reflective accuracy, underscoring its sustained and robust performance.

Large Language Model interfaces are increasingly verbose, exposing intermediate reasoning traces alongside final answers. Traces are framed as transparency mechanisms, yet it is unclear how people use them to solve problems. We report a preregistered between-subjects study (N = 559) in which participants solved ten LSAT-style reasoning problems under one of three conditions: an Answer-only baseline, a Full-trace revealed before the answer, and a Summary-trace presented alongside the answer. Summaries preserved task performance at the no-trace baseline while significantly elevating trust and hedonic appeal, establishing that trace exposure shifts subjective appraisal of the interaction without bringing performance benefits. Under an open-weight reasoning model exposing verbose intermediate output, full traces additionally impaired performance relative to the answer-only baseline. Across all conditions, participants substantially overestimated their performance, and no trace format supported calibrated self-evaluation. Further analysis indicates that hedonic appeal, not trust, carries the indirect path to overestimation, consistent with a processing-fluency account. Reasoning traces are best understood as user-facing interface artifacts rather than transparent windows into model cognition, and calibration is unlikely to emerge from the traces themselves and may best be scaffolded by interactions that elicit users' own reasoning first.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel at structural reasoning yet suffer from a sharp logical brittleness in structural consistency. We term this phenomenon Structural Cognitive Overload (SCO), a byproduct of the contention between deep reasoning and safety alignment. However, prior work has predominantly targeted typographic and pixel-level perturbations, leaving the study of SCO largely unexplored. To this end, we propose StructBreak, an automated end-to-end framework designed to quantify SCO. By leveraging StructBreak, we uncover a novel higher-order cognitive overload attack paradigm; notably, this attack operates under a practical black-box setting, requiring no internal model access. Consequently, we utilize this framework to establish a comprehensive benchmark spanning ten diverse threat scenarios. Empirical evaluations on six leading MLLMs reveal that SCO readily triggers toxic generation, yielding a 92% average ASR (up to 97% on Gemini 2.5). To elucidate the mechanism of SCO, we further conduct model-level interpretations spanning attention dynamics, latent space topology, and geometric analysis. Our findings reveal that StructBreak acts as a novel structural channel to circumvent safety filters. Furthermore, the limited efficacy of inherent safety mechanisms underscores that current alignment paradigms are insufficient for the era of complex multimodal reasoning.

Metaphorical videos are prevalent across various real-world scenarios to convey complex ideas, and understanding them typically requires high-order cognitive capabilities. The lack of systematic studies on metaphorical video understanding not only constrains the real-world applicability of MLLMs but also impedes the thorough assessment of their high-order cognitive capabilities. To bridge this gap, we propose MetaphorVU-Bench, the first systematic and comprehensive benchmark dedicated to metaphorical video understanding. Through experiments, we find current MLLMs struggle with accurate metaphorical video understanding, lagging far behind human level, primarily due to defective cross-domain mapping. Motivated by this finding, we construct a metaphor knowledge graph as mapping augmentation and propose MetaphorBoost, an inference-time enhancement framework achieving consistent performance improvement. Our benchmark, analysis, and method provide useful insights and a foundation for future research on advancing MLLMs.

Despite success on standard benchmarks, vision language models display persistent failures on tasks involving processing of multi-object scenes, including many tasks that are relatively easy for humans. Recent work has found that these failures may stem from a basic inability to accurately bind object features in-context, a challenge that is referred to as the "binding problem" in cognitive science and neuroscience. The human visual system is thought to solve this binding problem via serial processing, attending to individual objects one at a time so as to avoid interference from other objects. Recent work has proposed "pointing" -- the use of explicit spatial coordinates to refer to objects -- as an analogous solution for vision language models, and found that it improves performance on challenging multi-object tasks. However, it is unclear $\textit{why}$ (i.e., on a mechanistic or representational level) this approach improves performance, and how directly this relates to serial processing in human vision. Here, we investigate this question. We find that learning to point-via-text induces an internal visual search routine, and we characterize the mechanisms that support this procedure. We also find that pointing behavior can be generalized to new tasks via fine-tuning, and that doing so eliminates binding errors and enables compositional generalization. These results provide a proof-of-principle that serial processing can solve the binding problem for vision language models just as it does for biological vision.

Effective learning support requires understanding not only what learners know but also how accurately they perceive their own understanding. This metacognitive dimension, known as knowledge monitoring, fundamentally influences self-regulated learning, yet this dimension remains underexplored in current systems. This paper introduces the Capture-Calibrate-Coach (3C) framework for adaptive learning support. The Capture phase extracts learners' perceived knowledge states from open-ended self-reports to construct a heterogeneous graph linking learners and knowledge concepts. The Calibrate phase applies a heterogeneous graph neural network to infer latent perceived states for concepts not explicitly mentioned, enabling systematic knowledge monitoring assessment. The Coach phase classifies learners into five metacognitive patterns and delivers personalized feedback addressing both knowledge gaps and calibration errors. Evaluation with 684 students demonstrates 85.21% AUC in predicting latent perceived states, significantly outperforming baseline methods. A user study with 47 participants shows positive reception of feedback quality, with participants particularly valuing concrete feedback on knowledge gaps and actionable study guidance. These findings advance AI-based learning support toward metacognitive teammates that foster accurate self-awareness while supporting knowledge growth.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) frequently suffers from premature convergence. This paper introduces a family of problem-informed diversity-enhancing strategies that manipulate the swarm's social and cognitive components. These include opposing-best strategies that repel particles from optimal regions, negative learning strategies that guide exploration toward poor solutions, and reverse learning strategies that push particles away from inferior regions. These socio-cognitive mechanisms are evaluated against an analogous suite of problem-unaware, explicit randomization strategies that inject randomness either into velocity update components or directly into position updates. The results reveal that the effectiveness of diversity enhancement is determined primarily by how it is embedded within the swarm dynamics, rather than by the mere presence of extraneous problem-informed guidance. Particularly, random perturbations introduced at the velocity-update level consistently outperform those applied directly to particle positions.

The dominant artificial intelligence paradigm trains neural architectures via gradient descent against proxy objectives and reinforcement learning from human feedback. While remarkably capable, this top-down optimization inherently generates structural failure modes, including hallucination, sycophancy, reward hacking, and alignment fragility, which represent paradigmatic limitations rather than mere engineering defects. In response, we introduce RECLAIM (Recursive, Ecological, Cognitive, Lifelike, Adaptive, Intelligent Machine), a theoretical framework for cultivating intelligence through computational ecology rather than engineering it through strict optimization. The model is supported by four interlocking theoretical pillars. General Darwinism replaces gradients with blind variation and selective retention, while non-agentic emergence substitutes evaluative rewards with environmental physics to structurally prevent specification gaming against human intent. Concurrently, the Polya-Hebbian bridge applies Polya urn dynamics to Hebbian reinforcement for path-dependent specialization, and the free energy principle is integrated as environmental thermodynamics rather than as an agent objective. The architecture situates autopoietic units, bounded by Markov blankets and competing for finite computational energy, within a data ecology shaped by cognitive food chains and Red Queen arms races. This framework suggests the spontaneous emergence of dual-process cognition, sensory specialization, analogical reasoning, and intrinsic motivation as natural consequences of evolution under resource constraints. We conceptualize this paradigm transition as the OMEGA shift, representing a move from optimization and maximization to emergence through generative autopoiesis.

Cognitive distortions, distorted patterns of thinking, have been increasingly studied in computational mental health research. Although they are related to many, if not all, mental health disorders, most existing studies focus primarily on depression. In this work, we explore distortion profiles across multiple mental health conditions. We analyzed a large Reddit-based dataset containing posts from nine self-reported mental health groups as well as a control group using both an n-gram-based method and a fine-tuned transformer model for detecting cognitive distortions. Mental health groups, both when pooled together and when examined individually, showed higher prevalence of cognitive distortions compared to the control group, with the effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. When comparing distortion profiles across conditions, we observed largely similar patterns, although some groups exhibited overall higher levels of distortions than others. These findings suggest that relatively simple lexical approaches can be useful for exploratory analyses of group-level trends in large-scale mental health text data.

Manufacturing has passed through four widely recognized paradigms - mechanization, electrification, programmable automation, and Smart Manufacturing - each defined by the kind of work it shifted from humans to machines. In every case, one layer of industrial work remained fundamentally human: the coordinative cognition of production, comprising the interpretive, allocative, diagnostic, negotiative, and governance work exercised by engineers, planners, and operational managers. We argue that a fifth transition is now underway in which this layer, rather than the physical or routine-cognitive layers below it, is what foundation-model-based autonomous agents primarily redistribute. We name this paradigm Agent Manufacturing and define it operationally: a manufacturing system is an instance of Agent Manufacturing when its principal coordination mechanism is reasoning performed by foundation-model agents that can interpret open-ended goals, plan over long horizons, invoke tools and machines, and negotiate with other agents and humans. This is a narrower and more falsifiable definition than the existing literature on cognitive manufacturing or Industry 5.0 provides, and it distinguishes the paradigm sharply from classical multi-agent manufacturing systems, which were autonomous only within closed protocol spaces.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into emotionally sensitive domains, the structural integrity of their emotional intelligence (EI) becomes a critical frontier for safety and alignment. Current benchmarks often conflate superficial politeness with deep affective reasoning, failing to distinguish between perceptual accuracy and interactive efficacy. Here, we introduce FACET (Functional Affective Competence and Empathy Test), a psychometrically grounded framework comprising 480 expert-crafted items. Unlike previous metrics, FACET is theoretically anchored in the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso four-branch ability model, operationalizing EI through perception, facilitation, understanding, and management of emotions. Through an evaluation of nine frontier models (including GPT-5, Claude-Sonnet-4), we demonstrate that emotional intelligence is not a monolithic capability but is fragmented across cognitive and interactive dimensions. While frontier models demonstrate robust proficiency in objective emotion recognition and social reasoning, this does not consistently translate to interactive success. We categorize these discrepancies into three distinct performance profiles: cognitive-dominant, interactive-dominant, and context-dependent. These typologies indicate that emotional skills do not scale uniformly with general intelligence or model size; rather, they are shaped by specific alignment paradigms. Notably, we identify hidden emotion recognition as a universal performance bottleneck across all architectures. Our results suggest that current RLHF processes may optimize for "stochastic empathy", a statistical mimicry of emotional syntax, at the expense of integrated affective reasoning. These findings challenge the assumption of linear emotional scaling and provide a rigorous roadmap for developing socially aware agents capable of genuine clinical resonance.

Despite remarkable progress on reasoning benchmarks, current LLM evaluation practice remains anchored to final-answer correctness, providing limited insight into how models reason, how reliably they behave under contextual variation, or how efficiently they reach conclusions. This paper proposes a unified multi-dimensional framework for measuring LLM reasoning quality from a behavioral perspective, operationalizing six theoretically grounded dimensions rooted in cognitive science: Correctness (CQ), Consistency (CS), Robustness (RS), Local Logical Coherence (LS), Efficiency (ES), and Stability (SS). The framework introduces deployment-aware aggregation, enabling context-specific model selection beyond accuracy-based leaderboards. Experiments across multiple LLMs and benchmarks reveal behaviors systematically concealed by single-metric evaluation, including the orthogonality of local logical coherence and correctness, deployment-context-dependent ranking inversions, and non-trivial dimensional profiles in small locally-deployed models. Discriminant validity analysis confirms that the proposed dimensions capture largely non-redundant signals. The resulting pipeline provides a foundation for diagnosing LLM reasoning behavior across deployment contexts, with domain-specific validation as a direction for future work.

Language models are typically trained to predict the next token in a sequence. Here, we explore an alternative predictive principle from reinforcement learning: Successor Representations (SRs), which model the expected discounted distribution of future states rather than the immediate next state. We transfer this framework to natural language and train neural networks to predict future word distributions across multiple temporal horizons, thereby learning representations of long-range transition structure. We train a deep residual neural network on WikiText-103 (103 million tokens; 20,000-word vocabulary) and optimize successor representations as probability distributions using KL divergence. Without explicit linguistic supervision, structured language representations emerge spontaneously. After training, the learned space develops a clear geometric organization with respect to part-of-speech (POS) categories: nouns, verbs, and adjectives become separable and recoverable through unsupervised clustering. This organization depends systematically on predictive horizon, with short horizons producing the strongest syntactic structure and longer horizons increasingly integrating broader contextual and semantic information. At finer resolutions, additional interpretable lexical substructure emerges, revealing coherent subclasses within major word categories. These findings suggest that syntactic categories need not be explicitly encoded but may arise as a consequence of predictive sequence learning. To our knowledge, this work provides the first systematic application of successor representations to natural language and establishes a conceptual bridge between reinforcement learning, linguistics, and cognitive neuroscience.

Humans constantly reason about 3D proximity, the relations between their body and surrounding objects, to guide perception and action in daily life. Whether multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can perform such embodied 3D reasoning remains unclear. To this end, we introduce EgoProx, a benchmark for egocentric 3D proximity reasoning. We organize our tasks along a cognitive chain, covering intention, exploration, exploitation, and chain-of-actions reasoning. We also design an agent based data engine that produces diverse and consistent QA pairs at scale. We benchmark prevailing MLLMs on EgoProx and conduct additional analyses with dataset specific and task specific instruction tuning. We observe large cross-domain gains, indicating that current MLLMs contain some spatial knowledge; however, they still struggle to effectively leverage it for spatial reasoning VQA.

Human cognitive performance is constrained by limited mental resources, yet continuous computational estimation of cognitive capacity dynamics remains an open challenge. We propose a theory-driven multimodal learning framework that models capacity-related cognitive state as a two-dimensional physiological representation defined by voluntary resource allocation (mental effort) and overload-related strain (stress). The proposed architecture combines dual-stream encoding of cardiac (IBI/HRV) and electrodermal (EDA) signals with late fusion and task-specific output heads that independently estimate probabilistic effort and stress states. Evaluation on the SWELL-KW dataset using strict leave-one-subject-out cross-validation demonstrates cross-individual generalization (stress: 70.0% balanced accuracy; effort: 72.2%), with significant gains from multimodal integration and theory-guided supervision. Rather than collapsing physiological dynamics into a single workload label, the proposed effort--stress state-space enables structured differentiation between distinct cognitive regimes, including productive engagement and overload-related strain. Predicted state trajectories exhibit significant demand-sensitive shifts under controlled workload manipulations, with effort and stress responding differentially across interruption and time-pressure conditions. These results suggest that physiologically grounded multidimensional state representations may provide a foundation for adaptive systems capable of continuous capacity-aware monitoring and human-centered interaction.

Confidence-weighted routing, selective abstention, and ensemble weighting all assume that a model's stated confidence is informative about its capability on the question being asked. They presume functional metacognition, the capacity to assess one's own capabilities, without exercising them. Aggregate calibration is well studied, with mixed results, but the underlying structure of elicited confidence is less well understood. We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) across six benchmarks using tetrachoric factor analysis paired with pairwise calibration, asking whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance. On factual recall and information retrieval benchmarks the cross-model confidence matrix is approximately rank-one and a single dominant factor captures most of the latent variance. Models retrieving facts share an item-level difficulty axis and differ mainly in their decision thresholds along it. Across all benchmarks the relationship between confidence and performance collapses once items that all models agree on are removed. Inter-model pairwise calibration is small even where statistically significant, and what remains shrinks to nothing once base-rate differences along the shared factor are controlled for. Mathematical reasoning is the apparent exception, but this turns out to be a confound where reasoning models answer questions about their confidence by trying to solve them in their chain of thought, bypassing the sub-symbolic self-knowledge we seek to measure. We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.

In this paper, we advocate for incorporating enactive approaches to perception and cognition into artificial intelligence (AI). Enactive approaches view perception as an active, skillful engagement with the world, where agents perceive by acting and by understanding how their actions shape their experience. This contrasts with classical views that treat perception as a passive internal process in which the brain receives sensory input, processes it, and issues commands for action. Enactive views emphasize the dynamic, embodied, and interactive character of perception, grounded in the lived experience of agents embedded in their environments. We identify and develop four key enactive concepts that we find most relevant to AI: experience, action perception inseparability, autonomy, and embodiment. Much of mainstream AI, from classical rule based systems to large language models, has largely neglected these insights, treating cognition as internal processing detached from embodied interaction and intrinsic normativity. Reinforcement learning (RL), however, exhibits structural resonance with enactive principles through its emphasis on action, agent environment interaction, feedback driven adaptation, and agent centered evaluation. However, this resonance should not be taken as theoretical equivalence, as RL approximates some enactive insights, but key elements remain absent or weakly developed. Building on this analysis, we suggest a broader incorporation of enactive ideas into both mainstream AI and RL.

Recent RL methods have substantially improved the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Existing reward designs mainly follow two paradigms: (1) Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) derives outcome signals from executable checks or ground-truth answers, but provides limited guidance for intermediate reasoning behaviors. (2) Rubrics-as-reward (RaR) goes beyond final-answer checking by using natural-language rubrics to assess reasoning quality and task compliance, but often requires instance-specific rubrics and substantial design effort. To address these issues, we introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework that guides LLM reasoning through two general process dimensions: i) metacognitive knowledge, which identifies task-relevant information without hand-crafted instance-specific rubrics, and ii) metacognitive regulation, which plans and adjusts the reasoning process to provide reward guidance beyond final-answer outcomes. MaR scaffolds model rollouts into explicit metacognitive components and optimizes them with a trajectory-level reward over task knowledge coverage, regulation fidelity, and final-answer correctness. In this way, MaR extends reward feedback to reasoning trajectories while grounding the reward signals in general metacognitive dimensions. Experiments on 22 benchmarks show that MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model and up to an 11.0% gain over vanilla DAPO. Notably, Qwen3.5-9B + MaR narrows the gap to frontier models, surpassing GPT-OSS-120B on overall average and outperforming stronger models on several individual benchmarks. Process-level analysis further shows substantial improvements in reasoning process quality. MaR also generalizes to out-of-domain datasets, where MaR-trained models improve over their corresponding base models on average.

Making high-stakes personal decisions involves cognitive, emotional, and intuitive processes, and individuals differ in how they allocate attention across these modes. Integration of these processes has shown to benefit decision making. Yet, most current decision-support systems focus primarily on supporting cognitive aspects, rather than adapting to the individual's thinking profile to support integration of different types of thoughts. In this study, we investigate an agent designed to encourage integration by adapting to the individual user's thought patterns. We explore its effects on participants' perceptions of the agent and their reflective behavior, in comparison with unaided pre-reflection and a baseline agent. In a between-subjects study (N = 128), our agent, which fostered broad and elaborated thinking, enabled more personalized reflective trajectories, elicited more integrative reflective language, and was perceived as providing stronger support for holistic reflection. In contrast, the baseline agent produced homogenized profiles dominated by cognitive language across participants.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are central to the one-for-all intelligent paradigm, but they face a fundamental challenge when dealing with heterogeneous scientific data such as molecules: the inherent gap between discrete linguistic symbols and topological molecular or continuous reaction data leads to significant information loss and semantic noise in text-based reasoning. We propose SciCore-Mol, a modular framework that bridges this gap through three deeply integrated pluggable cognitive modules: a topology-aware perception module, a latent diffusion-based molecular generation module, and a reaction-aware reasoning module. Each module is coupled to the LLM backbone through learned representation interfaces, enabling richer information exchange than is possible with text-only tool feedback. Our experiments on diverse chemical tasks demonstrate that SciCore-Mol achieves strong comprehensive performance across molecular understanding, generation, reaction prediction, and general chemistry knowledge, with an 8B-parameter open-source system that is competitive with and in several dimensions surpasses proprietary large models. This work provides a systematic blueprint for equipping LLMs with scientific expertise through decoupled, pluggable, and flexibly orchestrated modules, with direct implications for drug design, chemical synthesis, and broader scientific discovery.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly deployed in human-facing roles where personality perception is critical, yet existing benchmarks evaluate this capability solely on numerical Big Five score prediction, leaving open whether models truly perceive personality through behavioral understanding or merely prejudge through superficial pattern matching. We address this gap with three contributions. (i) A new task: we formalize Grounded Personality Reasoning (GPR), which requires MLLMs to anchor each Big Five rating in observable evidence through a chain of rating, reasoning, and grounding. (ii) A new dataset: we release MM-OCEAN (1,104 videos, 5,320 MCQs), produced by a multi-agent pipeline with human verification, with timestamped behavioral observations, evidence-grounded trait analyses, and seven categories of cue-grounding MCQs. (iii) Benchmark and analysis: we design a three-tier evaluation (rating, reasoning, grounding) plus four sample-level failure-mode metrics: Prejudice Rate (PR), Confabulation Rate (CR), Integration-failure Rate (IR), and Holistic-grounding Rate (HR), and benchmark 27 MLLMs (13 closed, 14 open). The analysis uncovers a striking Prejudice Gap: across the field, 51% of correct ratings are not grounded in retrieved cues, and the Holistic-Grounding Rate spans only 0-33.5%. These findings expose a disconnect between getting the right score and reasoning for the right reason, charting a roadmap for grounded social cognition in MLLMs.

In The Algebraic Mind, Gary Marcus identified three components essential for any adequate cognitive architecture: operations over variables, recursively structured representations, and a distinction between mental representations of individuals and kinds. He argued that standard multilayer perceptrons supported none of these, acknowledging that a neural implementation using registers and treelets, constructed via developmental programs rather than gradient descent, remained a programmatic conjecture. Twenty-five years later, the required substrate is now available. Our newly developed PyVaCoAl/VaCoAl is a hyperdimensional computing architecture organized end-to-end around a single algebraic primitive: XOR-and-shift over GF(2), implemented by primitive-polynomial linear-feedback shift registers. The architecture supports reversible variable binding via Bind(R,F) = R XOR shift(F), non-commutative compositional bundling that distinguishes "the dog bites the man" from "the man bites the dog," and address-space individual/kind separation under the same algebra. A companion perspective argues that the dentate gyrus-CA3 circuit is a biological homologue of this same engine, with developmentally specified mossy-fiber targeting supplying the innate microcircuitry Marcus anticipated. In this paper, we map the correspondence between Marcus's three pillars and the operational commitments of PyVaCoAl/VaCoAl. We reinterpret the treelet as an algebraic register set indexed by a primitive generator polynomial, arguing that this architecture provides a functional neural substrate meeting Marcus's specifications far more closely than the tensor products, circular convolution, or temporal synchrony available in 2001. We also demonstrate how this substrate naturally extends to Pearl's rung-3 counterfactual reasoning, a capability the original treelet program did not directly target.