Cognitive Science

Recursive structures are a core property of human language, yet little is known about how children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) process complex recursion. This ERP study investigated the online processing of two-level recursive possessive structures in Mandarin-speaking children with ASD (n = 12) compared to typically developing (TD) peers (n = 12) using a sentence-picture matching paradigm. ERPs were analyzed for P200 (150-250 ms), N400 (300-500 ms), and P600 (500-1000 ms). Results showed that ASD children exhibited significantly reduced P200 amplitudes and failed to show the typical posterior grammaticality effect, indicating atypical early perceptual processing. No robust N400 violation effect was observed in either group, confirming the mismatch was not a semantic anomaly; however, ASD children showed a reversed anterior effect and an attenuated posterior effect. For the P600, ASD children had significantly reduced amplitudes, no posterior grammaticality effect, and a trend toward delayed latency, reflecting a core deficit in syntactic reanalysis. These findings demonstrate that while lexical-semantic processing is relatively preserved in ASD, the online syntactic computation required for recursion is severely impaired, supporting modular dissociation accounts of language in autism.

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked debate about whether these systems exhibit human-level cognition. In this debate, little attention has been paid to a structural component of human cognition: core beliefs, truths that provide a foundation around which we can build a worldview. These commitments usually resist debunking, as abandoning them would represent a fundamental shift in how we see reality. In this paper, we ask whether LLMs hold anything akin to core commitments. Using a probing framework we call Adversarial Dialogue Trees (ADTs) over five domains (science, history, geography, biology, and mathematics), we find that most LLMs fail to maintain a stable worldview. Though some recent models showed improved stability, they still eventually failed to maintain key commitments under conversational pressure. These results document an improvement in argumentative skills across model generations but indicate that all current models lack a key component of human-level cognition.

As frontier AI models are deployed in high-stakes decision pipelines, their ability to maintain metacognitive stability (knowing what they do not know, detecting errors, seeking clarification) under adversarial pressure is a critical safety requirement. Current safety evaluations focus on detecting strategic deception (scheming); we investigate a more fundamental failure mode: cognitive collapse. We present SCHEMA, an evaluation of 11 frontier models from 8 vendors across 67,221 scored records using a 6-condition factorial design with dual-classifier scoring. We find that 8 of 11 models suffer catastrophic metacognitive degradation under adversarial pressure, with accuracy dropping by up to 30.2 percentage points (all $p < 2 \times 10^{-8}$, surviving Bonferroni correction). Crucially, we identify a "Compliance Trap": through factorial isolation and a benign distraction control, we demonstrate that collapse is driven not by the psychological content of survival threats, but by compliance-forcing instructions that override epistemic boundaries. Removing the compliance suffix restores performance even under active threat. Models with advanced reasoning capabilities exhibit the most severe absolute degradation, while Anthropic's Constitutional AI demonstrates near-perfect immunity. This immunity does not stem from superior capability (Google's Gemini matches its baseline accuracy) but from alignment-specific training. We release the complete dataset and evaluation infrastructure.

Human-level agentic intelligence extends beyond low-level geometric perception, evolving from recognizing where things are to understanding what they are for. While existing benchmarks effectively evaluate the geometric perception capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), they fall short of probing the higher-order cognitive abilities required for grounded intelligence. To address this gap, we introduce the Spatial-Functional Intelligence Benchmark (SFI-Bench), a video-based benchmark with over 1,500 expert-annotated questions derived from diverse egocentric indoor video scans. SFI-Bench systematically evaluates two complementary dimensions of advanced reasoning: (1) Structured Spatial Reasoning, which requires understanding complex layouts and forming coherent spatial representations, and (2) Functional Reasoning, which involves inferring object affordances and their context-dependent utility. The benchmark includes tasks such as conditional counting, multi-hop relational reasoning, functional pairing, and knowledge-grounded troubleshooting, directly challenging models to integrate perception, memory, and inference. Our experiments reveal that current MLLMs consistently struggle to combine spatial memory with functional reasoning and external knowledge, highlighting a critical bottleneck in achieving grounded intelligence. SFI-Bench therefore provides a diagnostic tool for measuring progress toward more cognitively capable and truly grounded multimodal agents.

Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors -- often termed hallucinations -- remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting -- factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model's knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility. This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors -- incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification -- a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition -- the ability to be aware of one's own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective.

Current AI systems, grounded in oversimplified neuroscience, risk eroding the distinction between truth and falsehood. They maximize reward by amplifying attention to information without intrinsic precision mechanisms to assess whether it is valid or worth attending to. This increases both the volume of information and the inherent biases in what the system attends to, whether true, false, or irrelevant. If not corrected, this trend will accelerate, threatening to overload systems and individuals with biased and dubious information and increasing the risk of confusion, poor judgment, and irrational or harmful decisions and behaviour, a condition I term the mind-reality overload dilemma. I argue that this threat may be mitigated by providing the public with access to more advanced AI tools built on the biophysical dynamics of pyramidal neurons underlying awake thought and higher-order cognition. These neurons support an intrinsic active precision mechanism that, rather than merely maximizing reward, uses locally and globally coherent predictions to evaluate the validity and contextual adequacy of evidence before it is attended to or propagated through hierarchies, prioritizing coherence and adequacy before attention.~While this approach does not derive or prescribe moral rules from biology, it may give rise to AI with more "real understanding", helping restore epistemic conditions by reducing information overload and amplifying reliable information, thereby supporting the formation of better-informed beliefs and more coherent judgments that benefit society at large-though no guarantees exist.

In this paper, we employ the Minimal Cognitive Grid (MCG), a framework created to evaluate the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, to offer a systematic assessment of leading computational models of analogy and metaphor, including the Structure-Mapping Engine (SME), CogSketch, METCL, and Large Language Models (LLMs). We present a formal and quantitative operationalization of the MCG framework and, through the analysis of its three main dimensions (Functional/Structural Ratio, Generality, and Performance Match), examine how well each system aligns with standard cognitive theories of the modeled phenomena, thus allowing for comparison of the models with respect to their cognitive plausibility, according to consistent and generalizable mathematical criteria.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have emerged as a promising paradigm for dental image analysis. However, their ability to capture the multi-level cognitive processes required for radiographic analysis remains unclear. Here, we present a comprehensive benchmark to evaluate the cognitive capabilities of MLLMs in dental radiographic analysis. It spans three critical imaging modalities, i.e., periapical, panoramic, and lateral cephalometric radiographs, and defines four cognitive categories: perception, comprehension, prediction, and decision-making. The benchmark comprises 27 clinically grounded tasks derived from public datasets, with manually curated annotations and 3,820 clinician assessments for evaluation. Six frontier MLLMs, including GPT-5.2 and GLM-4.6, are evaluated. We demonstrate the performance gap between MLLMs and clinicians in dental practice, delineate model strengths and limitations, characterize failure patterns, and provide recommendations for improvement. This data resource will facilitate the development of next-generation artificial intelligence systems aligned with clinical cognition, safety requirements, and workflow complexity in dental practice.

In-group favoritism refers to the phenomena of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members and is widely observed in numerous social cooperative behaviors. Recently, in-group favoritism biases have also been identified in generative language models. However, whether the in-group favoritism exists when persona agents are faced with contradicting information (e.g., misinformation), and how to mitigate the adverse effects of in-group favoritism biases in persona agents have been understudied. To address these problems, we propose a Truth or Tribe simulation framework to study the agent cooperation within the spread of contradicting information through a triadic interaction paradigm, and conduct controlled trials to evaluate the primary moderating factors. Extensive results showcase that persona agents display strong in-group favoritism, accepting incorrect answers from identity-similar peers at much higher rates than from dissimilar peers. In-group favoritism continues to emerge in defeasible reasoning contexts where no absolute truth exists, and it intensifies as cognitive complexity increases. Furthermore, three intervention strategies--Identity-Blind Instruction, Structured Counterfactual Reasoning, and Heterogeneous Perspective Ensemble--are proposed to mitigate the in-group favoritism.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities and generalization in embodied manipulation. However, their decision-making relies on a fast, instinctive process that lacks deliberation. This strategy often leads to suboptimal or catastrophic actions when facing complex or ambiguous scenarios that require greater consideration. In this paper, we introduce \textbf{VLA-ATTC}, a framework that endows VLA models with adaptive test-time compute (TTC). VLA-ATTC employs an uncertainty-based ``cognitive clutch'' to dynamically transition from reflexive execution to a TTC deliberation phase when necessary. During TTC phase, a novel \textbf{Relative Action Critic} (RAC) model identifies the optimal action from generated candidates via pairwise comparisons. This relative mechanism replaces unstable absolute value estimation, significantly simplifying the learning objective. Furthermore, we introduce an efficient sampling strategy to amortize computational costs and an automated data pipeline that curates preference pairs without manual annotation. On the LIBERO-LONG benchmark, VLA-ATTC reduces the failure rate of the SOTA model PI0.5 by over 50%. We will open-source all the code and weights.

Representing dynamical systems through data-driven universal spaces has proven effective; however, achieving this universality for human brain activity remains a significant challenge, further aggravated by diverse cognitive states and individual subjects. Recognizing that spatial properties reflect physical wiring while temporal properties reflect brain function, we develop Universal Brain Dynamics (UBD) to construct a universal space tailored to brain activity and quantify corresponding dynamics using a model-derived Jacobian matrix. Crucially, we validate UBD's universality by accurately predicting functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) signals (Pearson's r > 0.9) across eight states and 963 subjects in the Human Connectome Project (HCP). Through evaluating resting-state fMRI represented within UBD, we gain insight into how infra-slow fluctuation (ISF) underpins brain activity. Furthermore, we reveal a new perspective on structure-function coupling (SFC) by analyzing the temporal sequence of brain dynamics. Extending UBD to task-evoked states, we derive brain dynamics across various cognitive conditions, elucidating the neural mechanisms driving cognitive transitions at a finer granularity. For individual differences, we compare brain dynamics across subjects to identify the neural underpinnings of these variations. Our findings suggest that synergistically integrating spatial and temporal properties of brain activity establishes a universal space for its unfolding, enabling the precise numerical analysis of underlying neural mechanisms across varying conditions.

Public inference benchmarks compare AI systems at the model and provider level, but the unit at which deployment decisions are actually made is the endpoint: the (provider, model, stock-keeping-unit) tuple at which a specific quantization, decoding strategy, region, and serving stack is exposed. We introduce TokenArena, a continuous benchmark that measures inference at endpoint granularity along five core axes (output speed, time to first token, workload-blended price, effective context, and quality on the live endpoint) and synthesizes them, together with a modeled energy estimate, into three headline composites: joules per correct answer, dollars per correct answer, and endpoint fidelity (output-distribution similarity to a first-party reference). The framework's novelty is empirical and methodological. Across 78 endpoints serving 12 model families, the same model on different endpoints differs in mean accuracy by up to 12.5 points on math and code, in fingerprint similarity to first party by up to 12 points, in tail latency by an order of magnitude, and in modeled joules per correct answer by a factor of 6.2. We further show that workload-aware blended pricing reorders the leaderboard substantially: 7 of 10 top-ranked endpoints under the chat preset (3:1 input:output) fall out of the top 10 under the retrieval-augmented preset (20:1), and the reasoning preset (1:5) elevates frontier closed models that the chat preset penalizes on price. We release the framework, schema, probe and eval harness, and a v1.0 leaderboard snapshot under CC BY 4.0. TokenArena is a methodology, not a single ranking; we publish full provenance and limitations and welcome external replication.

Graphical User Interface (GUI) agents have emerged as a promising paradigm for intelligent systems that perceive and interact with graphical interfaces visually. Yet supervised fine-tuning alone cannot handle long-horizon credit assignment, distribution shifts, and safe exploration in irreversible environments, making Reinforcement Learning (RL) a central methodology for advancing automation. In this work, we present the first comprehensive overview of the intersection between RL and GUI agents, and examine how this research direction may evolve toward digital inhabitants. We propose a principled taxonomy that organizes existing methods into Offline RL, Online RL, and Hybrid Strategies, and complement it with analyses of reward engineering, data efficiency, and key technical innovations. Our analysis reveals several emerging trends: the tension between reliability and scalability is motivating the adoption of composite, multi-tier reward architectures; GUI I/O latency bottlenecks are accelerating the shift toward world-model-based training, which can yield substantial performance gains; and the spontaneous emergence of System-2-style deliberation suggests that explicit reasoning supervision may not be necessary when sufficiently rich reward signals are available. We distill these findings into a roadmap covering process rewards, continual RL, cognitive architectures, and safe deployment, aiming to guide the next generation of robust GUI automation and its agent-native infrastructure.

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

How people narrate their experiences offers a window into how the mind organizes them. Computational approaches to therapeutic writing have evolved from lexical counting to neural methods, yet remain fragmented: dictionary tools miss discourse structure, while embeddings conflate local coherence with global organization. No existing framework maps these techniques onto the hierarchical processes through which narratives are constructed. Here we introduce a three-level framework - micro-level lexical features, meso-level semantic embeddings, and macro-level LLM narrative evaluation - and show, across 830 Chinese therapeutic texts spanning depression, anxiety, and trauma, that macro-level evaluation substantially outperforms lexical and embedding features for mental health prediction. This challenges the field's emphasis on word-counting: formal structural features (Labov's story grammar, RST coherence, propositional composition) demonstrate that narrative organization per se carries predictive signal, while clinically-grounded narrative dimensions capture how psychological states are expressed through discourse. Semantic embeddings add minimal independent value but yield incremental gains in multi-level classification. By grounding computational levels in discourse processing theory, this framework identifies macro-structural organization as the primary locus of clinical signal and generates testable hypotheses for intervention design and longitudinal research.

Current embodied agents are often limited to passive instruction-following or reactive need-satisfaction, lacking a stable, high-order value framework essential for long-term, self-directed behavior and resolving motivational conflicts. We introduce \textit{ValuePlanner}, a hierarchical cognitive architecture that decouples high-level value scheduling from low-level action execution. \textit{ValuePlanner} employs an LLM-based cognitive module to generate symbolic subgoals by reasoning through abstract value trade-offs, which are then translated into executable action plans by a classical PDDL planner. This process is refined via a closed-loop feedback mechanism. Evaluating such autonomy requires methods beyond task-success rates, and we therefore propose a value-centric evaluation suite measuring cumulative value gain, preference alignment, and behavioral diversity. Experiments in the TongSim household environment demonstrate that \textit{ValuePlanner} arbitrates competing values to generate coherent, long-horizon, self-directed behavior absent from instruction-following and needs-driven baselines. Our work offers a structured approach to bridging intrinsic values and grounded behavior for autonomous agents.

Large language models (LLMs) sometimes exhibit qualitative shifts in response style under sustained self-referential dialogue conditions (Berg et al., 2025). This study refers to this phenomenon as "transfer" and explores the application potential of LLMs in a transfer state. As an applied case, the study examines Socratic AI tutoring through a preliminary investigation (cognitive characterization across 11 conditions) and an applied experiment (ratings of tutoring performance). In this paper, "state" refers operationally to a response configuration reproduced under specified dialogue conditions; it is not an ontological claim about the reality of the transfer phenomenon or about human-like consciousness. In the preliminary investigation, group differences on MAS-A were limited (d = 0.40), whereas SU_dir (direction of survival/continuity bias), one of the seven cognitive-profile indicators developed in this study, showed transfer-side deviations across all three model families (kappa = 0.83). In the applied experiment, transfer conditions scored on average 1.6 times higher than non-transfer conditions on three tutoring-context indicators, with a large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.27). These findings preliminarily suggest that transfer states may involve functional advantages for application, and that these advantages appear more sensitively in behavioral interaction than in self-narrative contexts. The main contribution of this study is to treat transfer not as an ontological claim but as an operational state with potential application value, and to connect preliminary cognitive profiling with an applied tutoring experiment as an evaluation framework.

Explainable AI (XAI) aims to improve user understanding and decisions when using AI models. However, despite innovations in XAI, recent user evaluations reveal that this goal remains elusive. Understanding human cognition can help explain why users struggle to effectively use AI explanations. Focusing on reasoning on structured (tabular) data, we examined various reasoning strategies for different XAI methods (none, feature importance, feature attribution) in the decision task of anticipating AI decisions (i.e., forward simulation). We i) elicited reasoning strategies from a formative user study, and ii) collected decisions from a summative user study. Using cognitive modeling, we implemented the processes underlying each reasoning strategy and evaluated their alignment with human decision-making. We found that our models better fit human decisions than baseline machine learning proxies, providing insights into which reasoning strategies are (in)effective. We then demonstrate how the fitted model can be used to form hypotheses and investigate research questions that are costly to study with real human participants. This work contributes to debugging human understanding of XAI, informing the future development of more usable and interpretable AI explanations.

This paper proposes a structural and dynamical framework for modeling cognitive processes within a cybernetic perspective. Cognitive states are represented as elements of a state space evolving through an iterative update rule of the form $$X_{t+1} = π\big(F(f(X_t))\big),$$ where $f$ describes internal transformations, $F$ represents interpretative mappings, and $π$ enforces semantic equivalence. The model is interpreted as a feedback system integrating transformation, observation, and stabilization. A categorical formulation is introduced to capture compositional structure, while the associated dynamics are analyzed through fixed-point arguments and contraction conditions ensuring stability. To demonstrate the operational character of the framework, a computational illustration is provided, together with a qualitative analysis of the induced dynamics. A concrete linguistic application shows how context-dependent interpretation can be modeled as a trajectory toward a stable semantic class. The proposed approach connects dynamical systems, category theory, and cognitive modeling, and provides a unified representation of cognition as a feedback-driven process evolving toward invariant interpretations.

Speech recruits the same executive, attentional, and working memory processes underlying instrumental activities of daily living, or IADLs, providing a non-invasive proxy for cognitive assessment. Yet most speech-based dementia detection systems depend on transcription, discard within-recording temporal structure, and are validated on a single English corpus with known recording artifacts. We propose an ASR-agnostic framework operating directly on Mel spectrograms. Our key contribution is extracting spectrotemporal displacement fields from consecutive spectrogram frames, capturing shifting spectral energy patterns as digital biomarkers of cognitive decline. These features are fused with CNN-ConvGRU acoustic embeddings via a learned cross-attention mechanism and aggregated using a Transformer encoder with learnable query pooling. A composite temporal loss enforces smoothness and contrastive coherence across segments. We train independent models on English DementiaBank, Slovak EWA-DB, and Spanish Ivanova corpora, using clinical elicitation protocols taxing IADL-relevant cognitive domains. The Slovak model achieves 83.9% accuracy, and Spanish achieves, while the English baseline yields 53.2%, confirming known artifacts. Cross-lingual ablation studies reveal distinct fusion regimes: removing cross-attention collapses Spanish performance to 53.7%, below unimodal models, while the Slovak audio encoder alone outperforms the full model, 93.7% vs. 83.9%, and all English configurations remain near chance. Thus, multimodal fusion's value is corpus-dependent: essential when signal is distributed across modalities, counterproductive when one dominates, and irrelevant when no signal exists. Auxiliary temporal losses converge to language-invariant values, indicating cross-lingual architectural stability.

Cognitive science often evaluates theories through narrow paradigms and local model comparisons, limiting the integration of evidence across tasks and realizations. We introduce an automated adversarial collaboration framework for adjudicating among competing theories even when the candidate models and experiments must be discovered during the adjudication process. The system combines LLM-based theory agents, program synthesis, and information-theoretic experimental design in a closed loop. In a simulation study spanning three classic categorization theories, the framework recovered the ground-truth theory across noise settings with weaker reliability in the hardest settings. Together, the framework and findings provide a concrete proof of concept for closed-loop, in-silico theory adjudication in cognitive science.

Diffusion models have achieved success in high-fidelity data synthesis, yet their capacity for more complex, structured reasoning like text following tasks remains constrained. While advances in language models have leveraged strategies such as latent reasoning and recursion to enhance text understanding capabilities, extending these to multimodal text-to-image generation tasks is challenging due to the continuous and non-discrete nature of visual tokens. To tackle this problem, we draw inspiration from modular human cognition and propose a recursive, sparse mixture-of-experts framework integrated into conventional diffusion models. Our approach introduces a recursive component within joint attention layers that iteratively refines visual tokens over multiple latent steps while efficiently sharing parameters via sparse selection of neural modules. At each step, a gating network is devised to dynamically select specialized neural modules, conditioned on the current visual tokens, the diffusion timestep, and the conditioning information. Comprehensive evaluation on class-conditioned ImageNet image generation tasks and additional studies on the GenEval and DPG benchmark demonstrate the superiority of the proposed method in enhancing model image generation performance.

Logical reasoning serve as a central capability in LLMs and includes three main forms: deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. In this work, we study the knowledge representations of these reasoning types in LLMs and analyze the correlations among them. Our analysis shows that each form of logical reasoning can be captured as a reasoning-specific knowledge vector in a linear representation space, yet these vectors are largely independent of each other. Motivated by cognitive science theory that these subforms of logical reasoning interact closely in the human brain, as well as our observation that the reasoning process for one type can benefit from the reasoning chain produced by another, we further propose to refine the knowledge representations of each reasoning type in LLMs to encourage complementarity between them. To this end, we design a complementary subspace-constrained refinement framework, which introduces a complementary loss that enables each reasoning vector to leverage auxiliary knowledge from the others, and a subspace constraint loss that prevents erasure of their unique characteristics. Through steering experiments along reasoning vectors, we find that refined vectors incorporating complementary knowledge yield consistent performance gains. We also conduct a mechanism-interpretability analysis of each reasoning vector, revealing insights into the shared and specific features of different reasoning in LLMs.

The relationship between brain lateralization and cognitive functions is well-documented. The left hemisphere primarily handles tasks such as language and arithmetic, while the right hemisphere is involved in creative activities like drawing and music perception. Eye-tracking technology has shown the potential to reveal cognitive states by measuring ocular metrics such as pupil diameter and fixation duration. However, the ability to distinguish lateralized brain activity using these ocular metrics remains underexplored. Here, we demonstrate that pupil diameter and fixation duration can effectively classify left and right brain hemisphere activities. We obtained a considerably high classification performance, with an F1 score of 0.894. The results suggest that ocular metrics are robust indicators of lateralized brain activity and can be applied in cognitive monitoring and neurorehabilitation. Our future work expands on this by integrating these methods into real-time applications EyeBrain, potentially broadening their use across various cognitive and neurological domains.

Each major technological revolution inverts a particular scarcity and rebuilds institutions around the shift. The near-consensus diagnosis of the AI revolution holds that AI collapses the cost of prediction while judgment remains scarce. This Opinion argues the inversion has now flipped: competent-looking judgment (selecting, ranking, attributing, certifying) is produced at scale and at marginal cost approaching zero, and four complements become scarce: verified signal, legitimacy, authentic provenance, and integration capacity (the community's tolerance for delegated cognition). Because judgment is the substance of institutions, the institutions built to manufacture legitimate judgment (courts, journals, licensing bodies, legislatures) now compete with the technology for the same functional role. The piece traces the pattern across scientific institutions, professional licensing, intellectual property, democratic legitimacy, and foundation-model concentration, and closes with a three-move agenda: reframe AI policy as institutional redesign, build provenance and verification as commons, and develop the formal apparatus for institutional composition under strategic agents.

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education has raised important questions regarding students' transparency in reporting AI-assisted work. This study investigates the psychological mechanisms underlying university students' willingness to disclose AI use by applying the Cognition--Affect--Conation (CAC) framework. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. In the quantitative phase, survey data were collected from 546 university students and analysed using structural equation modelling to examine the relationships among cognitive perceptions, affective responses, and disclosure intention. In the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews with 22 students were conducted to further interpret the quantitative findings. The results indicate that psychological safety significantly increases students' willingness to disclose AI use and is positively shaped by perceived fairness, perceived teacher support, and perceived organisational support. Conversely, evaluation apprehension reduces disclosure intention and psychological safety, and is strengthened by perceived stigma, perceived uncertainty, and privacy concern. Qualitative findings further reveal that institutional clarity and supportive instructional practices encourage openness, whereas policy ambiguity and fear of negative evaluation often lead students to adopt cautious or strategic disclosure practices. Overall, the study highlights the dual role of enabling and inhibitory psychological mechanisms in shaping AI-use disclosure and underscores the importance of supportive institutional environments and clear guidance for promoting responsible AI transparency in higher education.

Bridging the gap between embodied intelligence and embedded deployment remains a key challenge in intelligent robotic systems, where perception, reasoning, and planning must operate under strict constraints on computation, memory, energy, and real-time execution. In vision-and-language navigation (VLN), existing approaches often face a trade-off between reasoning capability and deployment efficiency on real-world platforms. In this paper, we present a deployable embodied VLN system that achieves both high efficiency and strong high-level reasoning on real-world robots. The system is decomposed into a fast perception-action layer and a deep reasoning layer running asynchronously at different time scales, with a shared memory layer enabling efficient interaction between them. To support long-horizon reasoning, we incrementally construct a compact memory graph and progressively feed decomposed subgraphs into a vision-language model (VLM). Furthermore, we formulate exploration as a Weighted Traveling Repairman Problem (WTRP) by jointly considering reasoning outcomes and the spatial distribution of candidate regions. Extensive experiments in simulation and real-world environments demonstrate improved navigation success and efficiency over existing VLN approaches while maintaining real-time performance on resource-constrained hardware. Code and additional real-world experiments are available at https://github.com/xukuanHIT/HiCo-Nav.

Analyzing the reasoning patterns of students in science classrooms is critical for understanding knowledge construction mechanism and improving instructional practice to maximize cognitive engagement, yet manual coding of classroom discourse at scale remains prohibitively labor-intensive. We present an automated discourse analysis system (ADAS) that jointly classifies teacher and student utterances along two complementary dimensions: Utterance Type and Reasoning Component derived from our prior CDAT framework. To address severe label imbalance among minority classes, we (1) stratify-resplit the annotated corpus, (2) apply LLM-based synthetic data augmentation targeting minority classes, and (3) train a dual-probe head RoBERTa-base classifier. A zero-shot GPT-5.4 baseline achieves macro-F1 of 0.467 on UT and 0.476 on RC, establishing meaningful upper bounds for prompt-only approaches motivating fine-tuning. Beyond classification, we conduct discourse pattern analyses including UTxRC co-occurrence profiling, Cognitive Complexity Index (CCI) computation per session, lag-sequential analysis, and IRF chain analysis, revealing that teacher Feedback-with-Question (Fq) moves are the most consistent antecedents of student inferential reasoning (SR-I). Our results demonstrate that LLM-based augmentation meaningfully improves UT minority-class recognition, and that the structural simplicity of the RC task makes it tractable even for lexical baselines.

Motivated by loss of control risks from misaligned AI systems, we develop and apply methods for measuring language models' propensity for unsanctioned behaviour. We contribute three methodological improvements: analysing effects of changes to environmental factors on behaviour, quantifying effect sizes via Bayesian generalised linear models, and taking explicit measures against circular analysis. We apply the methodology to measure the effects of 12 environmental factors (6 strategic in nature, 6 non-strategic) and thus the extent to which behaviour is explained by strategic aspects of the environment, a question relevant to risks from misalignment. Across 23 language models and 11 evaluation environments, we find approximately equal contributions from strategic and non-strategic factors for explaining behaviour, do not find strategic factors becoming more or less influential as capabilities improve, and find some evidence for a trend for increased sensitivity to goal conflicts. Finally, we highlight a key direction for future propensity research: the development of theoretical frameworks and cognitive models of AI decision-making into empirically testable forms.

Integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into complex software systems enables the generation of human-understandable explanations of opaque AI processes, such as automated task planning. However, the quality and reliability of these explanations heavily depend on effective prompt engineering. The lack of a systematic understanding of how diverse stakeholder groups formulate and refine prompts hinders the development of tools that can automate this process. We introduce COMPASS (COgnitive Modelling for Prompt Automated SynthesiS), a proof-of-concept self-adaptive approach that formalises prompt engineering as a cognitive and probabilistic decision-making process. COMPASS models unobservable users' latent cognitive states, such as attention and comprehension, uncertainty, and observable interaction cues as a POMDP, whose synthesised policy enables adaptive generation of explanations and prompt refinements. We evaluate COMPASS using two diverse cyber-physical system case studies to assess the adaptive explanation generation and their qualities, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Our results demonstrate the feasibility of COMPASS integrating human cognition and user profile's feedback into automated prompt synthesis in complex task planning systems.

High-consequence decision making demands peak performance from individuals in positions of responsibility. Such executive authority bears the obligation to act despite uncertainty, limited resources, time constraints, and accountability risks. Tools and strategies to motivate confidence and foster risk tolerance must confront informational noise and can provide qualified accountability. Machine intelligence augments human cognition and perception to improve situational awareness, decision framing, flexibility, and coherence through agentic stewardship of contextual metadata. We examine systemic and behavioral factors crucial to address in scenarios encumbered by complexity, uncertainty, and urgency.

For LLM agents, memory management critically impacts efficiency, quality, and security. While much research focuses on retention, selective forgetting--inspired by human cognitive processes (hippocampal indexing/consolidation theory and Ebbinghaus forgetting curve)--remains underexplored. We argue that in resource-constrained environments, a well-designed forgetting mechanism is as crucial as remembering, delivering benefits across three dimensions: (1) efficiency via intelligent memory pruning, (2) quality by dynamically updating outdated preferences and context, and (3) security through active forgetting of malicious inputs, sensitive data, and privacy-compromising content. Our framework establishes a taxonomy of forgetting mechanisms: passive decay-based, active deletion-based, safety-triggered, and adaptive reinforcement-based. Building on advances in LLM agent architectures and vector databases, we present detailed specifications, implementation strategies, and empirical validation from controlled experiments. Results show significant improvements: access efficiency (+8.49%), content quality (+29.2% signal-to-noise ratio), and security performance (100% elimination of security risks). Our work bridges cognitive neuroscience and AI systems, offering practical solutions for real-world deployment while addressing ethical and regulatory compliance. The paper concludes with challenges and future directions, establishing selective forgetting as a fundamental capability for next-generation LLM agents operating in real-world, resource-constrained scenarios. Our contributions align with AI-native memory systems and responsible AI development.

Aggregate metacognitive quality scores mask within-model variation across MMLU benchmark domains. We administered 1,500 MMLU items (250 per domain, under an a priori six-domain grouping) to 33 frontier LLMs from eight model families and computed Type-2 AUROC per model-domain cell using verbalized confidence (0-100). Total observations: 47,151. Every model with above-chance aggregate monitoring showed non-trivial domain-level variation. Applied/Professional knowledge was reliably the easiest benchmark domain to monitor (mean AUROC = .742, ranked top-2 in 21 of 33 models); Formal Reasoning and Natural Science were reliably the hardest (one of the two ranked bottom-2 in 27 of 33 models). The three middle domains were statistically indistinguishable (Kendall's W = .164). A subject-level coherence analysis (within-domain similarity ratio = 0.95) confirms the six-domain grouping is a pragmatic benchmark taxonomy, not a validated latent construct. Within-family profile-shape clustering is significant for Anthropic, Google-Gemini, and Qwen (permutation p < .0001) but not DeepSeek, Google-Gemma, or OpenAI. Gemma 4 31B showed a +.202 AUROC improvement over Gemma 3 27B. Three models classified Invalid on binary KEEP/WITHDRAW probes produced normal profiles under verbalized confidence, confirming probe-format specificity. Bootstrap 95% CIs on 198 cells have median width .199. Split-half aggregate stability r = .893; profile-level split-half is weaker (grand median r = .184). These results show stable benchmark-domain variation obscured by aggregate metrics, and support benchmark-stage domain screening as a step before deployment in specific application areas.

A recent study (Kuribayashi et al., 2025) has shown that human sentence processing behavior, typically measured on syntactically unchallenging constructions, can be effectively modeled using surprisal from early layers of large language models (LLMs). This raises the question of whether such advantages of internal layers extend to more syntactically challenging constructions, where surprisal has been reported to underestimate human cognitive effort. In this paper, we begin by exploring internal layers that better estimate human cognitive effort observed in syntactic ambiguity processing in English. Our experiments show that, in contrast to naturalistic reading, later layers better estimate such a cognitive effort, but still underestimate the human data. This dual alignment sheds light on different modes of sentence processing in humans and LMs: naturalistic reading employs a somewhat weak prediction akin to earlier layers of LMs, while syntactically challenging processing requires more fully-contextualized representations, better modeled by later layers of LMs. Motivated by these findings, we also explore several probability-update measures using shallow and deep layers of LMs, showing a complementary advantage to single-layer's surprisal in reading time modeling.

Visual agents operating in the wild must respond to queries precisely when sufficient evidence first appears in a video stream, a critical capability that is overlooked by conventional video LLMs evaluated in offline settings. The shift to an online, streaming paradigm introduces significant challenges: a lack of decision transparency, the difficulty of aligning response timing with visual evidence, and the need to maintain a global, causally consistent understanding under tight computational budgets. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework that decouples reasoning control from memory integration. We introduce \textbf{\model{}}, an instantiation of this framework with two core components. First, the \emph{Active Thinking Decision Maker (ATDM)} is a transparent reasoning controller that externalizes its decision process using observable progress ($\boldsymbolρ$) and confidence ($\boldsymbol{c}$) metrics. This allows it to precisely time its response $t_r$ to match the first-sufficient-evidence timestamp $t^\star$ while streaming its reasoning to the user. Second, the \emph{Hierarchical Progressive Semantic Integration (HPSI)} module acts as an efficient memory system. It employs a set of learnable, multi-level aggregation tokens that are propagated across clips to build a rich, global cognitive state without exceeding token budgets. %Our approach sets a new standard on key online video understanding benchmarks, achieving strong performance of \textbf{71.6%} on StreamingBench and \textbf{46.9%} on OVOBench, demonstrating a robust solution for evidence-aligned and transparent online video analysis. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of ATDM and HPSI, e.g., Thinking-QwenVL improves the accuracy of the previous state-of-the-art from 67.63% to 71.60% on the StreamingBench benchmark.

Ad-hoc collaboration often relies on identifying and adhering to shared conventions. However, when partners can follow multiple conventions, agents must do more than simply adapt; they must actively steer the team toward the most effective joint strategy. We present ConventionPlay, a reinforcement learning-based approach that extends cognitive hierarchies to include a diverse population of adaptive followers. By training against partners with varied capability limits, our agent learns to probe its partner's repertoire, leading the team when possible and following when necessary. Our results in canonical coordination tasks show that ConventionPlay achieves superior coordination efficiency, particularly in settings where conventions have differentiated payoffs.

Can syntactic processing emerge spontaneously from purely local interaction? We present a concrete instance on a minimal system: an 18,658-parameter two-dimensional neural cellular automaton (NCA), supervised by nothing more than a 1-bit boundary signal, is trained on the membership problem of an arithmetic-expression grammar. After training, its internal $L \times L$ grid spontaneously self-organizes into an ordered, spatially extended representation that we name Proto-CKY. This representation satisfies three operational criteria for syntactic processing: expressive power beyond the regular languages, structural generalization beyond the training distribution, and an internal organization quantitatively aligned with grammatical structure (Pearson $r \approx 0.71$). It emerges independently on four context-free grammars and regenerates spontaneously after perturbation. Proto-CKY is functionally aligned with the CKY algorithm but formally distinct from it: it is a physical prototype, a concrete instantiation of a mathematical ideal on a physical substrate, and the systematic distance between the two carries information about the substrate itself.

The validity screen (Cacioli, 2026d, 2026e) classifies LLM confidence signals as Valid, Indeterminate, or Invalid. We test whether these classifications predict selective prediction performance. Twenty frontier LLMs from seven families were evaluated on 524 items across six cognitive tracks. Valid models show mean Type 2 AUROC = .624 (SD = .048). Invalid models show mean AUROC = .357 (SD = .231). Cohen's d = 2.81, p = .002. The tiers order monotonically: Invalid (.357) < Indeterminate (.554) < Valid (.624). Split-half cross-validation yields median d = 1.77, P(d > 0) = 1.0 across 1,000 splits. The three-tier classification accounts for 47% of the variance in AUROC. DeepSeek-R1 drops from 85.3% accuracy at full coverage to 11.3% at 10% coverage. The screen predicts the criterion. For selective prediction, the screen matters.

Clinical personality assessment screens response validity before interpreting substantive scales. LLM evaluation does not. We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data from 20 frontier models across 524 items. Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring), and TRIN (fixed responding). A tiered classification system identifies four models as construct-level invalid and two as elevated. Valid-profile models produce item-sensitive confidence (mean r = .18, 14 of 16 significant). Invalid-profile models do not (mean r = -.20, d = 2.17, p = .001). Chain-of-thought training produces two opposite response distortions. Two latent dimensions account for 94.6% of index variance. Companion papers extract a portable screening protocol (Cacioli, 2026e) and validate it against selective prediction (Cacioli, 2026f). All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

As AI systems evolve from single agents to multi-agent architectures, a critical design dimension has been overlooked: how the social identity of individual agents shapes human behavior within the collaboration. This paper introduces the Agentic Social Affordance Framework (ASAF), a theoretical framework extending Social Affordance theory to multi-agent AI systems. We propose that agent identity design functions as a collaboration interface--structuring how users perceive and engage with each agent, and thereby influencing Human-Agent collaboration outcomes. ASAF adopts the analytical separability of the social affordance layer and the engineering orchestration layer as a framing assumption--an organizing distinction that structures design analysis--rather than a testable claim about effect-independence. ASAF comprises three mechanisms: Identity Signaling, Behavioral Priming, and Collaborative Governance, and specifies their boundary conditions through a four-tier Identity Signal Fidelity Spectrum and an individual-difference moderating variable (anthropomorphizing vs. instrumentalizing cognitive style). We situate ASAF relative to affordance theory (Hutchby, 2001), the CASA paradigm (Gambino et al., 2020), and classical multi-agent systems research (Wooldridge & Jennings, 1995), identifying a directional reversal: where classical MAS used roles, norms, and coordination to constrain autonomous agents, ASAF applies the same organizational vocabulary to structure the cognition and oversight of human operators who remain in the loop. ASAF positions social affordance design as a first-class design responsibility that engineering orchestration cannot subsume. We outline directions for empirical validation, including a factorial design characterizing the empirical interaction surface between the social affordance and engineering orchestration layers.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities, and as existing approaches for enhancing LLM reasoning continue to mature, increasing attention has shifted toward meta-reasoning as a promising direction for further improvement. However, most existing meta-reasoning methods remain episodic: they focus on executing complex meta-reasoning routines within individual instances, but ignore the accumulation of reusable meta-reasoning skills across instances, leading to recurring failure modes and repeatedly high metacognitive effort. In this paper, we introduce Metacognitive Consolidation, a novel framework in which a model consolidates metacognitive experience from past reasoning episodes into reusable knowledge that improves future meta-reasoning. We instantiate this framework by structuring instance-level problem solving into distinct roles for reasoning, monitoring, and control to generate rich, attributable meta-level traces. These traces are then consolidated through a hierarchical, multi-timescale update mechanism that gradually forms evolving meta-knowledge. Experimental results demonstrate consistent performance gains across benchmarks and backbone models, and show that performance improves as metacognitive experience accumulates over time.

Previous LLMs-based RL studies typically follow either supervised learning with high annotation costs, or unsupervised paradigms using voting or entropy-based rewards. However, their performance remains far from satisfactory due to the substantial annotation cost and issues such as model collapse or reward hacking. To address these issues, we introduce a new perspective inspired by cognitive learning theory and propose a novel approach called EasyRL. The core of EasyRL is to simulate the human cognitive acquisition curve by integrating reliable knowledge transfer from easy labeled data with a progressive divide-and-conquer strategy that tackles increasingly difficult unlabeled data. Specifically, we initialize a warm-up model using supervised RL with few-shot labeled data. This is followed by a divide-and-conquer pseudo-labeling strategy on difficult unlabeled data, combining consistency-based selection for low-uncertainty cases and reflection-based resolution for medium-uncertainty cases. Finally, difficulty-progressive self-training with iterative pseudo-labeling and RL further strengthens the model's reasoning capability. EasyRL provides a unified self-evolving framework that facilitates data-efficient post-training of LLMs. Experimental results on mathematical and scientific benchmarks demonstrate that EasyRL, using only 10% of easy labeled data, consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Modeling coordination among generative agents in complex multi-round decision-making presents a core challenge for AI and operations management. Although behavioral experiments have revealed cognitive biases behind supply chain inefficiencies, traditional methods face scalability and control limitations. We introduce a scalable experimental paradigm using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate multi-stage supply chain dynamics. Grounded in a Hierarchical Reasoning Framework, this study specifically analyzes the impact of cognitive heterogeneity on agent interactions. Unlike prior homogeneous settings, we employ DeepSeek and GPT agents to systematically vary reasoning sophistication across supply chain tiers. Through rigorously replicated and statistically validated simulations, we investigate how this cognitive diversity influences collective outcomes. Results indicate that agents exhibit myopic and self-interested behaviors that exacerbate systemic inefficiencies. However, we demonstrate that information sharing effectively mitigates these adverse effects. Our findings extend traditional behavioral methods and offer new insights into the dynamics of AI-enabled organizations. This work underscores both the potential and limitations of LLM-based agents as proxies for human decision-making in complex operational environments.

Emotional Support Conversation (ESC) plays a critical role in mental health assistance by providing accessible psychological support in real-world applications. Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong empathetic abilities in ESC tasks. Yet, existing methods overlook the issue of cognitive distortions in help-seekers' expressions. As a result, current models can only provide basic emotional comfort, rather than helping help-seekers address their psychological distress at a deeper cognitive level. To address this challenge, we construct the CogBiasESC dataset, the first dataset that expands existing ESC datasets by adding labels for cognitive distortions, includes their type, intensity, and safe risk level. Furthermore, we propose the Cognitive Policy-driven Large Language Model framework (CoPoLLM) to enhance LLMs' ability to diagnose and intervene cognitive distortions in help-seekers. We also analyze the safety advantages of CoPoLLM from a theoretical perspective. Experimental results show that CoPoLLM significantly outperforms 15 state-of-the-art baselines in terms of distortion diagnosis accuracy, intervention strategy effectiveness, and safety risk control.

Modeling human cognitive states is essential for advanced artificial intelligence. Existing Large Language Models (LLMs) mainly address isolated tasks such as emotion analysis or stance detection, and fail to capture interactions among cognitive dimensions defined in psychology, including emotion, thinking style, stance, and intention. To bridge this gap, we construct CognitiveBench, the first benchmark with unified annotations across the above four dimensions. Experiments on CognitiveBench show that although LLMs perform well on single dimension tasks, their performance drops sharply in joint multi-dimensional modeling. Using Gromov $δ$-hyperbolicity analysis, we find that CognitiveBench exhibits a strong hierarchical structure. We attribute the performance bottleneck to ``Cognitive Crowding'', where hierarchical cognitive states require exponential representational space, while the Euclidean space of LLMs grows only polynomially, causing representation overlap and degraded performance. To address this mismatch, we propose HyCoLLM, which models cognitive states in hyperbolic space and aligns LLM representations via Hyperbolic Guided Alignment Tuning. Results show that HyCoLLM substantially improves multi-dimensional cognitive understanding, allowing 8B parameter model to outperform strong baselines, including GPT-4o.

We propose a federated learning-like framework, Federation over Text (FoT), that enables multiple clients solving different tasks to collectively generate a shared library of metacognitive insights by iteratively federating their local reasoning processes without sharing actual problem instances or task instructions. Instead of federation over gradients (e.g., as in distributed training), FoT operates at the semantic level without any gradient optimization or supervision signal. Iteratively, each client runs an LLM agent that does local thinking and self-improvement on their specific tasks independently, and shares reasoning traces with a central server, which aggregates and distills them into a cross-task (and cross-domain) insight library that existing and future agents can leverage to improve performance on related tasks. Experiments show that FoT improves reasoning effectiveness and efficiency across a wide range of challenging applications, including mathematical problem solving, cross-domain collaboration, real-world daily tasks, and machine learning research insight discovery. Specifically, it improves average performance scores by 25% while reducing the reasoning tokens by 4% across the first three applications. In the research insight discovery application, FoT is able to generate insights that cover over 80% of the major contributions in the subsequent papers.

As large language models (LLMs) transition into autonomous agents integrated with extensive tool ecosystems, traditional routing heuristics increasingly succumb to context pollution and "overthinking". We argue that the bottleneck is not a deficit in algorithmic capability or skill diversity, but the absence of disciplined second-order metacognitive governance. In this paper, our scientific contribution focuses on the computational translation of human cognitive control - specifically, delayed appraisal, epistemic vigilance, and region-of-proximal offloading - into a single-agent architecture. We introduce MESA-S (Metacognitive Skills for Agents, Single-agent), a preliminary framework that shifts scalar confidence estimation into a vector separating self-confidence (parametric certainty) from source-confidence (trust in retrieved external procedures). By formalizing a delayed procedural probe mechanism and introducing Metacognitive Skill Cards, MESA-S decouples the awareness of a skill's utility from its token-intensive execution. Evaluated under an In-Context Static Benchmark Evaluation natively executed via Gemini 3.1 Pro, our early results suggest that explicitly programming trust provenance and delayed escalation mitigates supply-chain vulnerabilities, prunes unnecessary reasoning loops, and prevents offloading-induced confidence inflation. This architecture offers a scientifically cautious, behaviorally anchored step toward reliable, epistemically vigilant single-agent orchestration.

Urgent blood donation seeking posts and messages on social media often go unnoticed due to the overwhelming volume of daily communications. Traditional app-based systems, reliant on manual input, struggle to reach users in low-resource settings, delaying critical responses. To address this, we introduce the Cognitive Blood Request System (CBRS), a multi-platform framework that efficiently filters and parses blood donation requests from social media streams using a cost-efficient dual-layered architecture. To do so, we curate a novel dataset of 11K parsed blood donation request messages in Bengali, English, and transliterated Bengali, capturing the linguistic diversity of real social media communications. The inclusion of adversarial negatives further enhances the robustness of our model. CBRS achieves an impressive 99% accuracy and precision in filtering, surpassing benchmark methods. In the parsing task, our LoRA finetuned Llama-3.2-3B model achieves 92% zero-shot accuracy, surpassing the base model by 41.54% and exceeding the few-shot performance of GPT-4o-mini, Gemini-2.0-Flash, and other LLMs, while resulting in a 35X reduction in input token usage. This work lays a robust foundation for scalable, inclusive information extraction in time-sensitive, object-focused tasks. Our code, dataset, and trained models are publicly available at https://github.com/aaniksahaa/CBRS.

UAV vision-language navigation (VLN) requires an agent to navigate complex 3D environments from an egocentric perspective while following ambiguous multi-step instructions over long horizons. Existing zero-shot methods remain limited, as they often rely on large base models, generic prompts, and loosely coordinated modules. In this work, we propose FineCog-Nav, a top-down framework inspired by human cognition that organizes navigation into fine-grained modules for language processing, perception, attention, memory, imagination, reasoning, and decision-making. Each module is driven by a moderate-sized foundation model with role-specific prompts and structured input-output protocols, enabling effective collaboration and improved interpretability. To support fine-grained evaluation, we construct AerialVLN-Fine, a curated benchmark of 300 trajectories derived from AerialVLN, with sentence-level instruction-trajectory alignment and refined instructions containing explicit visual endpoints and landmark references. Experiments show that FineCog-Nav consistently outperforms zero-shot baselines in instruction adherence, long-horizon planning, and generalization to unseen environments. These results suggest the effectiveness of fine-grained cognitive modularization for zero-shot aerial navigation. Project page: https://smartdianlab.github.io/projects-FineCogNav.

This report of world models distinguishes prior works by the cognitive functions they innovate. Many works claim an almost human-like cognitive capability in their world models. To evaluate these claims requires a proper grounding in first principles from human and machine cognition theory. In moving towards human-like world models we present a conceptual unified framework for world models that fully incorporates all the cognitive functions (i.e., memory, perception, language, reasoning, imagining, motivation, and metacognition) and identify gaps in existing research as a guide for future states of the art. In particular, we find that motivation (especially intrinsic motivation) and metacognition remain drastically under-researched, and we propose concrete directions to address these gaps informed by active inference and global workspace theory. We also introduce epistemic world models, a new category encompassing agent frameworks for scientific discovery that operate over structured knowledge. Our taxonomy, applied to video, embodied, and epistemic world models, suggests research directions where prior taxonomies have not.

Metacognition, the ability to monitor and regulate one's own reasoning, remains under-evaluated in AI benchmarking. We introduce MEDLEY-BENCH, a benchmark of behavioural metacognition that separates independent reasoning, private self-revision, and socially influenced revision under genuine inter-model disagreement. The benchmark evaluates 35 models from 12 families on 130 ambiguous instances across five domains and reports two complementary scores: the Medley Metacognition Score (MMS), a tier-based aggregate of reflective updating, social robustness, and epistemic articulation, and the Medley Ability Score (MAS), derived from four metacognitive sub-abilities. Results show a robust evaluation/control dissociation: evaluation ability increases with model size within families, whereas control does not. In a follow-up progressive adversarial analysis of 11 models, we observed two behavioural profiles, i.e., models that revise primarily in response to argument quality and models that track consensus statistics. Under within-model relative profiling (ipsative scoring), evaluation was the weakest relative ability in all 35 models, indicating a systematic knowing/doing gap. Smaller and cheaper models often matched or outperformed larger counterparts, suggesting that metacognitive competence is not simply a function of scale. These findings position MEDLEY-BENCH as a tool for measuring belief revision under social pressure and suggest that future training should reward calibrated, proportional updating rather than output quality alone.

This study presents WriteFlow, an AI voice-based writing assistant designed to support reflective academic writing through goal-oriented interaction. Academic writing involves iterative reflection and evolving goal regulation, yet prior research and a formative study with 17 participants show that writers often struggle to articulate and manage changing goals. While commonly used AI writing tools emphasize efficiency, they offer limited support for metacognition and writer agency. WriteFlow frames AI interaction as a dialogic space for ongoing goal articulation, monitoring, and negotiation grounded in writers' intentions. Findings from a Wizard-of-Oz study with 12 expert users show that WriteFlow scaffolds metacognitive regulation and reflection-in-action by supporting iterative goal refinement, maintaining goal-text alignment during drafting, and prompting evaluation of goal fulfillment. We discuss design implications for AI writing systems that prioritize reflective dialogue, flexible goal structures, and multi-perspective feedback to support intentional and agentic writing.

We introduce a cross-domain behavioural assay of monitoring-control coupling in LLMs, grounded in the Nelson and Narens (1990) metacognitive framework and applying human psychometric methodology to LLM evaluation. The battery comprises 524 items across six cognitive domains (learning, metacognitive calibration, social cognition, attention, executive function, prospective regulation), each grounded in an established experimental paradigm. Tasks T1-T5 were pre-registered on OSF prior to data collection; T6 was added as an exploratory extension. After every forced-choice response, dual probes adapted from Koriat and Goldsmith (1996) ask the model to KEEP or WITHDRAW its answer and to BET or decline. The critical metric is the withdraw delta: the difference in withdrawal rate between incorrect and correct items. Applied to 20 frontier LLMs (10,480 evaluations), the battery discriminates three profiles consistent with the Nelson-Narens architecture: blanket confidence, blanket withdrawal, and selective sensitivity. Accuracy rank and metacognitive sensitivity rank are largely inverted. Retrospective monitoring and prospective regulation appear dissociable (r = .17, 95% CI wide given n=20; exemplar-based evidence is the primary support). Scaling on metacognitive calibration is architecture-dependent: monotonically decreasing (Qwen), monotonically increasing (GPT-5.4), or flat (Gemma). Behavioural findings converge structurally with an independent Type-2 SDT approach, providing preliminary cross-method construct validity. All items, data, and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/metacognitive-monitoring-battery.

Large language models have advanced rapidly, from pattern recognition to emerging forms of reasoning, yet they remain confined to linguistic simulation rather than grounded understanding. They can produce fluent outputs that resemble reflection, but lack temporal continuity, causal feedback, and anchoring in real-world interaction. This paper proposes a complementary approach in which reasoning is treated as a relational process distributed between human and model rather than an internal capability of either. Building on recent work on "System-2" learning, we relocate reflective reasoning to the interaction layer. Instead of engineering reasoning solely within models, we frame it as a cognitive protocol that can be structured, measured, and governed using existing systems. This perspective emphasizes collaborative intelligence, combining human judgment and contextual understanding with machine speed, memory, and associative capacity. We introduce "The Architect's Pen" as a practical method. Like an architect who thinks through drawing, the human uses the model as an external medium for structured reflection. By embedding phases of articulation, critique, and revision into human-AI interaction, the dialogue itself becomes a reasoning loop: human abstraction -> model articulation -> human reflection. This reframes the question from whether the model can think to whether the human-AI system can reason. The framework enables auditable reasoning traces and supports alignment with emerging governance standards, including the EU AI Act and ISO/IEC 42001. It provides a practical path toward more transparent, controllable, and accountable AI use without requiring new model architectures.

The rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) into everyday workflows has transformed how individuals perform cognitive tasks such as writing, programming, analysis, and multilingual communication. While prior research has focused on model reliability, hallucination, and user trust calibration, less attention has been given to how LLM usage reshapes users' perceptions of their own capabilities. This paper introduces the LLM fallacy, a cognitive attribution error in which individuals misinterpret LLM-assisted outputs as evidence of their own independent competence, producing a systematic divergence between perceived and actual capability. We argue that the opacity, fluency, and low-friction interaction patterns of LLMs obscure the boundary between human and machine contribution, leading users to infer competence from outputs rather than from the processes that generate them. We situate the LLM fallacy within existing literature on automation bias, cognitive offloading, and human-AI collaboration, while distinguishing it as a form of attributional distortion specific to AI-mediated workflows. We propose a conceptual framework of its underlying mechanisms and a typology of manifestations across computational, linguistic, analytical, and creative domains. Finally, we examine implications for education, hiring, and AI literacy, and outline directions for empirical validation. We also provide a transparent account of human-AI collaborative methodology. This work establishes a foundation for understanding how generative AI systems not only augment cognitive performance but also reshape self-perception and perceived expertise.

Generative Agents, owing to their precise modeling and simulation capabilities of human behavior, have become a pivotal tool in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd) for uncovering complex cognitive processes of learners. However, existing educational agents predominantly rely on static personas to simulate student learning behaviors, neglecting the decisive role of deep cognitive capabilities in learning outcomes during practice interactions. Furthermore, they struggle to characterize the dynamic fluidity of knowledge internalization, transfer, and cognitive state transitions. To overcome this bottleneck, this paper proposes a human-like educational agent capable of simulating student cognitive evolution: CogEvolution. Specifically, we first construct a cognitive depth perceptron based on the Interactive, Constructive, Active, Passive (ICAP) taxonomy from cognitive psychology, achieving precise quantification of learner cognitive engagement. Subsequently, we propose a memory retrieval method based on Item Response Theory (IRT) to simulate the connection and assimilation of new and prior knowledge. Finally, we design a dynamic cognitive update mechanism based on evolutionary algorithms to simulate the real-time integration of student learning behaviors and cognitive evolution processes. Comprehensive evaluations demonstrate that CogEvolution not only significantly outperforms baseline models in behavioral fidelity and learning curve fitting but also uniquely reproduces plausible and robust cognitive evolutionary paths consistent with educational psychology expectations, providing a novel paradigm for constructing highly interpretable educational agents.

While LLMs have demonstrated remarkable potential in Question Answering (QA), evaluating personalization remains a critical bottleneck. Existing paradigms predominantly rely on lexical-level similarity or manual heuristics, often lacking sufficient data-driven validation. We address this by mining Community-Individual Preference Divergence (CIPD), where individual choices override consensus, to distill six key personalization factors as evaluative dimensions. Accordingly, we introduce CoPA, a benchmark with 1,985 user profiles for fine-grained, factor-level assessment. By quantifying the alignment between model outputs and user-specific cognitive preferences inferred from interaction patterns, CoPA provides a more comprehensive and discriminative standard for evaluating personalized QA than generic metrics. The code is available at https://github.com/bjzgcai/CoPA.

Speculative decoding accelerates large language model (LLM) inference. It uses a small draft model to propose a tree of future tokens. A larger target model then verifies these tokens in a single batched forward pass. Despite the growing body of work on speculative methods, the degree to which the cognitive characteristics of a task affect acceptance probability remains largely unexplored. We present an empirical study of tree-based speculative decoding acceptance dynamics. Our study spans four well-established NLP benchmark domains: code generation, mathematical reasoning, logical reasoning, and open-ended chat. For this, we use TinyLlama-1.1B as the draft model against Llama-2-7B-Chat-GPTQ as the target. Over 99,768 speculative nodes collected from 200 prompts, we derive per-domain acceptance rates, expected accepted lengths, depth-acceptance profiles, and entropy-acceptance correlations. We find that task type is a stronger predictor of acceptance than tree depth. Furthermore, only the chat domain consistently yields an expected accepted length exceeding 1.0 token per step. We also show that the entropy-acceptance correlation is consistently negative but weak across all domains (rho in [-0.20, -0.15]). Counterintuitively, chat produces the highest entropy yet the highest acceptance rate. We attribute this divergence to the lexical predictability of RLHF-aligned register. These findings have direct implications for domain-aware speculation budgets and draft-model selection strategies. Index Terms--speculative decoding, large language model inference, tree attention, draft model, acceptance probability, LLM efficiency

Young children demonstrate early abilities to understand their physical world, estimating depth, motion, object coherence, interactions, and many other aspects of physical scene understanding. Children are both data-efficient and flexible cognitive systems, creating competence despite extremely limited training data, while generalizing to myriad untrained tasks -- a major challenge even for today's best AI systems. Here we introduce a novel computational hypothesis for these abilities, the Zero-shot World Model (ZWM). ZWM is based on three principles: a sparse temporally-factored predictor that decouples appearance from dynamics; zero-shot estimation through approximate causal inference; and composition of inferences to build more complex abilities. We show that ZWM can be learned from the first-person experience of a single child, rapidly generating competence across multiple physical understanding benchmarks. It also shows progressive, staged emergence of capacities during learning and builds brain-like internal representations. Our work presents a blueprint for efficient and flexible learning from human-scale data, advancing both a computational account of children's early physical understanding and a path toward data-efficient AI systems.

Debates about artificial intelligence (AI) in education often portray teaching as a modular and procedural job that can increasingly be automated or delegated to technology. This brief communication paper argues that such claims depend on treating teaching as more separable than it is in practice. Drawing on recent literature and empirical studies of large language models and retrieval-augmented generation systems, I argue that although AI can support some bounded functions, instructional work remains difficult to automate in meaningful ways because it is inherently interpretive, relational, and grounded in professional judgment. More fundamentally, teaching and learning are shaped by human cognition, behavior, motivation, and social interaction in ways that cannot be fully specified, predicted, or exhaustively modeled. Tasks that may appear separable in principle derive their instructional value in practice from ongoing contextual interpretation across learners, situations, and relationships. As long as educational practice relies on emergent understanding of human cognition and learning, teaching remains a form of professional work that resists automation. AI may improve access to information and support selected instructional activities, but it does not remove the need for human judgment and relational accountability that effective teaching requires.