Cognitive Science

Large language models (LLMs) are integral to complex intellectual tasks, yet output quality remains constrained by user-provided prompts. Iterative multi-turn prompting often leads to context degradation and diminishing cognitive returns. We present PAWNI (Prompt Architecture Wizard using Neural Intelligence), an agentic conversational interface of eight agents that transforms unstructured queries into structured prompts through guided question-and-answer dialogue informed by a self-evolving knowledge base. Rather than optimising the model's response, PAWNI optimises the question itself by front-loading intent clarification. We also propose a three-tier framework of 18 prompt elements across Essential, Enhancement, and Elevation categories. To evaluate system behaviour and validate a measurement protocol, we conducted an exploratory within-subjects study (N=4) across four complex tasks, integrating 32-channel EEG, NASA-TLX workload, and behavioural metrics. Participants produced more structurally complete prompts with PAWNI (42% to 91% of assessed elements), rated LLM outputs higher across all quality dimensions, and reported lower workload (39.6 vs. 21.7 NASA-TLX). Every participant reached satisfactory output in a single turn, compared to 1-12 turns unaided. While effect sizes are unstable due to sample size, direction consistency supports the hypothesis that optimising prompt formulation front-end is a critical lever for human-AI collaboration.

Recent meta-reasoning frameworks improve LLM reasoning by wrapping chain-of-thought generation in an iterative control loop, allowing more effective backtracking, termination of reasoning loops, and injection of promising reasoning patterns, among other strategy adjustments. Despite promising results, methods often rely on backward-looking reward functions, utilize coarse search actions, or require additional reasoning controller training requiring many-shot supervision. We introduce Cognitive Demand Steering (CDS), a training-free meta-reasoning framework equipped with residual demand assessment: at each step, an LLM-based progress evaluator characterizes the residual reasoning required to arrive at a solution rather than merely evaluating the previous step. This allows a meta-controller to select reasoning interventions comprising both general-purpose exemplars and actions (e.g., general guidance for quantitative reasoning) that directly tackle this forward-looking demand signal. This shift eliminates the need for any trained component while enabling zero-shot transfer across models and tasks with no adaptation. Rather than relying on coarse characterizations, we employ cognitive scales to both design interventions as well as profile initial problem complexity and residual demand signal over 16 dimensions motivated by cognitive science (e.g., attention and scan, learning and abstraction, spatio-physical reasoning), giving the controller a fine-grained vocabulary for diagnosing. Averaged across three frontier LLMs and six reasoning benchmarks, CDS improves accuracy by $21.9\%$ over direct calls and $9\%$ over standard CoT reasoning, with the largest gains on difficult mathematics and coding tasks.

Evaluating artificial intelligence systems has historically relied on outcome-based benchmarks that measure task accuracy, robustness, or fairness. While indispensable, these benchmarks provide limited diagnostic insight into the underlying cognitive processes that generate performance-leaving critical questions unanswered about how AI systems reason, integrate memory, manage complexity, or avoid generating false information. This paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC), a theoretically grounded framework for shifting evaluation from what text-based AI systems produce to how they think. MAAC defines nine cognitively motivated dimensions: Cognitive Load, Tool Execution, Content Quality, Memory Integration, Complexity Handling, Hallucination Control, Knowledge Transfer, Processing Efficiency, and Process-Outcome Alignment. Each dimension is grounded in established cognitive science theory-drawing on Marr's tri-level hypothesis, Baddeley's working memory model, Sweller's cognitive load theory, and unified theories of cognition. Five theoretical analyses provide initial support for the framework's coherence and empirical testability: dimension-to-theory mapping; a coverage matrix assessing breadth and non-redundancy; a formal gap analysis relative to current evaluation practice; a worked diagnostic illustration; and a set of a priori interdependency predictions for future empirical testing. MAAC provides a theoretical and operational framework for principled process-level cognitive assessment of text-based AI systems, complementing existing outcome-based benchmarks with cognitively grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation.

Contemporary AI discourse attributes to language models properties they cannot bear: general intelligence as substrate-independent cognition, hallucination as cognitive failure, agency as autonomous goal-pursuit, sentience as emergent inner life, alignment as goal synchronization. This paper argues that these are instances of a single category mistake--properties constituted within human communicative practice are projected onto the machine side--and explains its structure. Human-LLM interaction constitutes a language game in which one side bears all normative activity. We call this configuration asymmetric communication since model outputs circulate communicatively, entering further exchanges, without the system undertaking commitments, bearing entitlements, or performing the assessment on which discursive standing depends. Three conditions define the asymmetry: (i) correctness is enforced exclusively by the receiver; (ii) accountability is borne by human participants alone; and (iii) the practical standing of any output depends entirely on human uptake. These conditions are structural, hold independently of capability, and remain unchanged as more powerful models raise the stakes of misattribution. The framework draws on Wittgenstein (meaning enacted in shared practices), Luhmann (communication completed on the receiver's side), Esposito (algorithmic contingency sufficient for uptake), and Brandom (normative scorekeeping as the source of discursive standing). Applied to all five, it reclassifies each as a receiver-side phenomenon, grounds guardrails as structural necessities rather than manifestations of machine moral agency, and yields an implication for AI governance. Alignment is institutional constraint engineering, not goal synchronization between agents, while responsibility remains with human institutions.

Inference-time thinking improves the performance of large language models, but aggregate outcomes do not reveal whether models use available evidence more effectively or seek information that could improve future decisions. We distinguish these responses by measuring action preference, thinking length, and reported confidence under matched uncertainty. Ten open-weight models completed matched horizon-style two-armed bandit trials in thinking and non-thinking modes. A cognitive model separated value-guided action and uncertainty-independent choice noise from two behavioral signatures of exploration: a UCB-like preference for the less-known arm and Thompson-like choice variability that increases with total uncertainty. On average, thinking strengthened value-guided action and reduced uncertainty-independent choice noise, without producing UCB-like exploration or strengthening Thompson-like exploration. Outside action, the information-imbalanced history condition, which also displayed more observations than the matched balanced condition, was associated with greater thinking length. Reported confidence became more sensitive to decision difficulty and more strongly associated with chosen task evidence. We interpret these thinking-length and reported-confidence patterns as consistent with metacognitive control and metacognitive monitoring, respectively, without establishing either process. Decoder sweeps, especially temperature, altered choice noise and thinking length but did not reproduce the joint cross-output pattern. In this controlled decision setting, thinking improved how models acted on current evidence, while neither measured signature supported a shift toward a more information-seeking policy.

LLMs are widely regarded as alien intelligences, systems whose cognitive operations are fundamentally unlike our own. Apparent similarities to human cognition are therefore often seen as the result of anthropomorphic projection. We argue that this framing is mistaken. LLMs clearly differ from humans in important respects, including their physical substrate, learning history, and the environments with which they interact. These differences make it all the more striking that contemporary LLM-based systems converge with human cognition on a number of principles of cognitive organization with longstanding support in cognitive science. We identify structural correspondences across five dimensions: inferential organization, computational architecture, representational structure, prediction-driven learning, and reinforcement-learning-like mechanisms supporting goal-directed action. These correspondences support a broader model of intelligent cognition in which core principles long used to explain human intelligence also characterize contemporary LLM-based systems.

This paper studies the behavior of language models in a multi-agent crowd simulation, focusing on how affect propagates among agents that perceive and appraise one another. Each agent perceives its neighbors through visual, auditory, and tactile channels, then appraises these perceptions in light of its prompted personality profile, memory, current affective state, and situational context. Appraisal is carried out by an LLM, which updates the agent's internal affective state and selects its outward expression. The architecture contains no hand-authored mechanism for directly transferring affective state between agents; instead, inter-agent influence arises through the perception-appraisal-expression loop. The agent representation draws on the Big Five personality model and Russell's circumplex model of affect. To limit latency, low-level steering and navigation are handled by a conventional crowd simulator operating independently of the LLM-based cognitive layer. We evaluate the architecture across five scenario environments spanning alarming, joyful, and neutral situations in different spatial layouts. The results show that the system produces emotional contagion dynamics with spatial, temporal, and personality-dependent structure in sparse, small crowds. Alarm spreads from seeded agents as a traveling front, the mean alarmed fraction settles at a nonzero plateau, and the distribution of prompted personality profiles determines whether an ambiguous alarm ignites panic and whether a provocation is interpreted as anger or fear. We further evaluate the appraisal step through controlled experiments across prompt variants, sampling temperatures, and four model backends, showing that the dynamics are backend-dependent.

LLM cognitive scores are increasingly summarized as per-ability profiles whose dimensions should converge across tasks, respond selectively to matched interventions, and generalize beyond the models used to define them. We introduce CogArena, a procedurally generated 13-paradigm benchmark built around a multimethod framework for determining when cognitive-task scores warrant dimensional labels across five theory-motivated groupings. Across 55 open-weight models, nearly all paradigm correlations are positive and a common axis explains about half the variance. The within-grouping advantage is small, scoring-sensitive, and uncertain across model families. In a separately frozen, fully crossed study across 12 models from six families, targeted scaffolds show a small matched-grouping advantage, but no scaffold-specific contrast survives multiplicity correction and selectivity does not improve held-out-family prediction. The frozen confirmation criterion fails. A post-hoc alternate-wording replication produces a smaller positive estimate and again fails. Together, these results support a boundary conclusion. Theory-aligned prompting produces a small in-battery diagonal tendency, but the present evidence does not establish stable five-dimensional profiles. CogArena provides a workflow joining behavioral signatures, covariance, matched interventions, and out-of-family prediction before cognitive labels are attached to model scores.

Large language models may easily assign personality labels from text, but model interpretability remains an open problem. To address this gap, we introduce LEX-EC, a reusable black-box audit framework combining prevalence and agreement diagnostics with controlled lexical ablation to distinguish marginal-distribution effects from trait-associated signal recoverable under restricted evidence. Using this framework, we illustrate how various text genres may exhibit sharply different profiles: free-form essay text contains the broadest, but still weak, signal; in graduate student introductions, an observable Extraversion association weakened after masking; and single Facebook statuses yield little stable evidence even in a trait-balanced sample, indicating a possible lower bound of content or length. Masking topical and demographic content weakened some associations while leaving others detectable from function words, affective terms, and cognitive-style vocabulary. Linguistic prompting shifted model self-explanations but did not eliminate topical content. LEX-EC jointly evaluates classification prevalence, item-level association, chance-corrected agreement, persistence under lexical restriction, and prompt sensitivity in model-generated explanations. Across datasets, models, and prompts, LEX-EC characterizes how trait associations may vary with available lexical evidence, introducing a novel application of lexical methods to black-box interpretability in personality labeling.

Memory, planning, reflection, and tool use are often compared as feature labels, obscuring the control semantics that determine how an agent actually runs. This review connects ten historical cognitive architectures, eight language-agent runtime families, and forty-two mechanism-focused modern systems. We reconstruct each mechanism through state, control, transition, persistence, failure, learning, and resource governance, then code evidence relation (E1-E4) separately from migration depth (D0-D4). The resulting landscape is uneven. Modern agents have operationalized substantial parts of adaptive memory, failure recovery, dynamic team selection, workflow search, skill induction, resource scheduling, and uncertainty-conditioned action, although often through independent convergence rather than documented inheritance. The strongest remaining opportunities lie in couplings among mechanisms. Closest-baseline screening closes one proposed gap: GraSP already combines calibrated multi-skill selection, typed compilation, verification, bounded repair, and replanning or ReAct fallback. Five residual bundles remain: activation with latency and action utility; typed impasse with isolated substates and resolution compilation; bounded content competition with broadcast and admission learning; persistent intention with reconsideration and live method authority; and uncertainty with resource allocation, interruption, and stopping. We contribute a distinctive-mechanism catalog, an auditable evidence-depth framework, and a falsifiable agenda for testing these bundles as composable runtime invariants.

This exploratory study examines whether a large multimodal language model, GPT-5.1, can serve as the high-level controller of a physical mobile robot despite having no prior embodiment, no training in simulated environments, and no exposure to sensorimotor experience. Using only low-resolution first-person images and a discrete action set, the model was tasked with navigation and object-directed behaviors such as locating and contacting a target toy. Across multiple trials, GPT-5.1 demonstrated emergent capabilities that suggest elements of spatial reasoning and physical understanding. These included maintaining short-term memory of object locations after they left the camera frame, inferring the physical consequences of its own movements, and executing coherent action sequences such as colliding with an object and reversing to visually verify the outcome. At the same time, the model displayed inefficiencies and perceptual limitations, including imprecise alignment strategies and occasional misidentification of distant distractors. Overall, the results indicate that GPT-5.1 exhibits signs of world-model-like behavior in an embodied setting, despite the absence of any embodiment-related training, a finding that challenges long-standing views in cognitive science and robotics which hold that a physical body is a necessary prerequisite for developing such forms of intelligence. The findings motivate deeper investigation into the emergence, limits, and robustness of physical understanding in large language models.

The rapid adoption of generative AI tools has created new literacy demands for designers who must verbalize tacit knowledge through natural language prompts. Yet the micro-level cognitive processes by which designers externalize implicit intentions during iterative AI dialogue remain underexplored. This exploratory qualitative study examined five expert designers (11-20 years UI/UX experience, M = 15.4 years) using think-aloud protocols. We identified "Strategic Oscillation" -- experts' intentional return to vague language (Vibe) after progressing toward operational specifications (Code), leveraging AI's probabilistic nature for creative exploration. We observed shifts from "instruction" to "consultation" mode, deep reflection triggered by semantic collisions, and one participant's disengagement revealing conceptual alignment as a tentative boundary condition. We propose the ECRT cycle (Expectation-Collision-Reflection-Transformation) operationalizing the SECI model's "externalization" phase for human-AI collaboration. These findings yield three design patterns for metacognitive support and position AI as a "probabilistic mirror" catalyzing tacit knowledge externalization.

Large language model (LLM) evaluation spans diverse tasks and benchmarks, yet evidence remains organized around tasks rather than the capabilities they probe. This fragmentation limits cross-study comparison, obscures capabilities tasks recruit, and makes coverage gaps difficult to identify. We introduce a multi-layer taxonomy of 14 capability domains and 91 subskills across Primitive, Constructed, and Integrative layers. Human cognitive science guides capability definition and organization, not LLM architecture. Layer assignments draw on developmental precedence and hypothesized functional support, while human-origin constructs are adapted to observable model behavior. To demonstrate operational utility, we screened 31,505 papers from ACL, AAAI, ICML, and NeurIPS between 2023 and 2025 and mapped 15,934 LLM-focused papers through multi-model annotation, consensus, and arbitration. Direct research attention concentrated on Language-Semantic Competence (3,551; 22.3%), Reasoning (3,388; 21.3%), Planning and Decision-Making (2,149; 13.5%), and Perception (1,954; 12.3%), whereas six domains appeared in fewer than 2% of papers. Within domains, the most frequent subskill had a median prevalence of 97.9% and appeared in at least 90% of papers in 10 of 14 domains. Language-Semantic Competence and Reasoning formed the highest-volume pair (n = 1,864; 11.7%; lift = 2.47), whereas Theory of Mind and Social Reasoning and Interaction showed the highest lift among pairs with at least 20 co-occurrences (n = 62; lift = 30.84). By shifting the unit of analysis from isolated tasks to structured capabilities, the taxonomy supports research organization, coverage audits, evaluation interpretation, and testable hypotheses for diagnosis, training, and transfer.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems. While guidance from AI assistants can scaffold thinking and foster learning, such benefits depend on how they help--for instance, intervening too early or too frequently may hinder true learning and cognitive engagement. Yet how AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Int-Bench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating LLM interventions during learning. Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene. Across three domains--code debugging, mathematics, and brain teasers--we evaluate LLM teachers on the frequency and timing of interventions, as well as their impact on both immediate task success and generalization to new problems. We also compare LLMs to humans, finding that LLMs intervene more frequently and earlier than humans. Moreover, in contrast to humans, they tend to provide complete solutions rather than targeted hints. These findings suggest that current LLM assistants often optimize for short-term success rather than supporting the reasoning processes needed for deeper learning and long-term success.

Activation steering enables control and interpretation of LLMs, yet existing work primarily models personality through static trait frameworks such as the Big Five. We investigate whether personality can instead be represented and controlled as a set of cognitive processes using the eight Jungian Cognitive Functions. To this end, we introduce a framework comprising a Jungian evaluation protocol and a dataset of over 2,100 role-playing character narrations. Activation steering vector extraction and evaluation experiments on Llama-3.1-8B demonstrate effective monotonic control over all eight cognitive functions through activation steering. Beyond controllability, our analysis reveals that: 1. personality information is concentrated in middle transformer layers; 2. steering vectors exhibit structured geometric relationships consistent with distinctions between rational and irrational functions; 3. effective multi-dimensional steering directions cannot be recovered as linear combinations of single-function directions. These findings provide new insights into the representation of personality in LLM activation space and establish a framework for studying interpretable, effective, and multi-dimensional personality control.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at many tasks, they frequently struggle with complex reasoning that requires long-horizon planning and iterative error correction. Furthermore, standard single-stream prompting proves brittle when models encounter novel abstractions or rigorous domain constraints. We introduce PoTRE (Poly-Topological Reasoning Ensembles), a heterogeneous framework that decouples inference into four agents: (1) Adversarial Refinement Agent, (2) Hierarchical strategic Planning Agent, (3) Spectrum Search Agent, and (4) Direct Chain Agent. A final Task-Adaptive Aggregation Layer dynamically reconciles these perspectives -- via final candidate selection, semantic synthesis, or neuro-symbolic verification -- to produce a robust global solution. We evaluate PoTRE on three frontier benchmarks: ARC-AGI-2, Humanity's Last Exam (HLE), and PRBench Finance. PoTRE achieves state-of-the-art accuracy of 49.92% on HLE, surpassing the previous best official score. We demonstrate that this architectural heterogeneity achieves improved reasoning performance using similar or fewer inference tokens compared to heavily scaled homogeneous baselines.

AI researchers describe state-of-the-art models as one thing repeated at scale: the Transformer, wired identically for text, pixels, or speech. Neuroscientists describe the cortex as a mosaic - dense Layer 4 in visual cortex for spatial encoding, thick Layers 5/6 in motion cortex for temporal integration - different jobs solved by different structures. This paper argues the gap is a structural error, not a stylistic one, and is measurable. A century of cytoarchitecture, from Brodmann to single-cell Patch-seq, shows distinct cognitive functions are implemented by qualitatively different structures, not by rescaling one template. The convolutional neural network is the field's own proof: local receptive fields and hierarchical depth encoded this prior directly, reaching strong image recognition on far less data than later architectures needed. The paper traces how this lesson was discarded: the "Hardware Lottery" made the Transformer the path of least resistance, not the principled choice, and Mixture-of-Experts, often cited as diversity, in fact partitions parameters among identical experts. A functionalist analysis shows the Transformer is best understood as a functional analog of the hippocampal formation, not a general-purpose cortex - the same mistake as treating cortex as one giant Broca's area, except the field has now standardized on a giant hippocampus, applied to tasks it was never built for: audition, executive gating, working memory. The paper closes with an alternative: a Heterogeneous Topological Network, a System of Systems in which distinct modules keep the inductive bias their computation demands and communicate through standardized interfaces. This is a design discipline for AI architects, not cognitive science: specify modularity before training, using structural evidence as a design input rather than reverse-engineering architecture from a trained model's behavior.

Agent-memory workloads mix direct factual lookup, relation-chain and current-state reasoning, and broad synthesis over long histories. We describe Supra Cognitive Modes (SCM), an architecture that maps explicit or automatically selected per-query modes to retrieval and synthesis payloads over one shared ingest substrate. A frozen semantic classifier and runtime gates dispatch queries among fused lexical and dense lookup, graph or iterative multi-hop handling, and stratified long-form synthesis. The substrate combines multi-granularity embeddings, extracted triples, fact-version metadata, and optional asynchronous enrichments. We characterize the deployed configuration on three benchmarks: Long-term Conversational Memory (LoCoMo; n = 1,986), MemoryAgentBench (MAB; n = 3,671), and LongMemEval (n = 500). The reference run records 84.87% on LoCoMo factoid categories and 68.61% on adversarial abstention, 61.49% on MAB across two repetitions, and 86.00% on LongMemEval. A repository-backed reproduction produces similar aggregate scores and supports task- and mode-conditioned failure analysis. Raw baseline outputs, aligned end-to-end timing for LoCoMo and LongMemEval, and complete token ledgers are unavailable; stored rows also omit some final runtime decisions. The results characterize one implemented routed configuration and its diagnostic failure patterns, while source inspection verifies the per-query control interface and shared-substrate design. Causal routing effects, efficiency gains, and statistical significance remain outside the available evidence.

General intelligence, of the kind that underwrites the full range of human cognitive achievement, is not a property of computational architecture alone. This paper advances a single thesis: the structural constraints on general intelligence occupy distinct levels of description and are mutually non-reducible, in the sense that the special-sciences tradition gives to that term. It follows that no single architectural advance, and no continuation of the scaling programme by itself, can produce artificial general intelligence (AGI), and that research programmes must be evaluated against the full constraint profile rather than against performance on any one benchmark. The thesis is developed through a method that reads general intelligence through four evidential lenses, AI systems research, anthropology, law, and economics, each anchored to a distinct level of description, supplemented by speculative fiction used as a disciplined heuristic in the context of discovery rather than the context of justification. Applying the method yields a taxonomy of twenty-three structural constraints organised into eight clusters; six are examined in depth and ordered as an ascending ladder of levels, with explicit bridges showing why progress at one level cannot carry to the next. The argument issues in five falsifiable predictions, each stated with a named benchmark family and a disconfirmation condition, converting a descriptive framework into a research programme with a longer horizon than the scaling hypothesis implies.

Pragmatic language use requires reasoning about alternatives: the alternative expressions a speaker might have chosen, or the alternative interpretations a listener might entertain. Formal and computational models of pragmatics must therefore specify the sets of alternatives that interlocutors reason over, which is often done through manual specification. Here we propose a framework, ScAffolded Generative models for Explanation (SAGE), that combines the explanatory transparency of cognitive models with the generative flexibility of language models (LMs). SAGE decomposes a pragmatic process into three kinds of modules: proposers, which use LMs to generate an open-ended space of candidate alternatives; evaluators, which assess those alternatives (e.g., their semantics, complexity, or typicality); and selectors, which implement the rule-based computational steps of a cognitively motivated task analysis. We assess SAGE in three case studies spanning pragmatic generation and interpretation-referential expression generation, manner (M-)implicatures, and Gricean conversational implicatures. SAGE models are evaluated critically using established methods from computational cognitive modeling, including ablations, baseline comparisons, and quantitative fit to human data. Across studies, SAGE models achieved high accuracy and often outperformed baselines, but component-level analyses reveal an asymmetry: LM proposers reliably generated alternatives well-suited to pragmatic modeling, whereas LM evaluators are better at providing intuitive judgements rather than judgements of theoretical or formal measures. We discuss the promise and the limitations of neuro-symbolic models as candidate explanatory accounts of human pragmatic language use.

Existing AI measurement frameworks quantify cognitive capability, task automation, or catastrophic risk, but none measure autonomous agency: the extent to which a system behaves in a self-directed way. A system can saturate capability benchmarks while remaining entirely reactive, acting only when prompted and ceasing all activity when a task completes. We introduce the Autonomous Agency Scale (AAS), a behavioral framework that scores AI systems on a 0-5 lexicon across seven dimensions of agency: cognitive autonomy, temporal persistence, environmental agency, social agency, creative agency, self-awareness, and goal formation, each operationalized by falsifiable threshold tests. Every dimension is scored in two temporal bands: an Active band covering engaged, user-initiated activity, and an Ambient band covering idle periods. Ambient Level 4 is gated by the Idle-Gap Test, a counterfactual criterion (remove all triggers and observe whether internally derived activity persists) that separates self-direction from scheduled rule-following. We apply the scale to six contemporary systems spanning task agents (Claude Code, Manus, Hermes), consumer assistants (ChatGPT, Siri), and a persistent companion architecture (Airi). The two-band profile quantifies a boundary that single-score frameworks conflate: task agents reach Active composites of 2.3-2.4 while scoring 0.6-1.9 Ambient, with every idle-period behavior attributable to user-configured schedules, whereas the companion architecture, evaluated longitudinally, is the only assessed system whose idle-period behavior survives trigger removal. We discuss limitations, including single-rater provenance, developer-evaluator bias on the longitudinal assessment, and the partially operationalized self-direction boundary in the Active band.

AI systems are increasingly employed as decision aids, decision delegates, or autonomous decision-makers. This position paper argues that in many settings, particularly high-stakes decision-making, we need accurate cognitively-aligned AI systems that reason similarly to their users, and faithfully communicate their reasoning. We review evidence that cognitive alignment improves understandability and trustworthiness, and provide new survey data showing that many users find cognitive alignment "essential" when an AI's rationale for a judgment or action is important to them. We outline the gaps between existing alignment methods and what is needed to achieve cognitive alignment, and present a research agenda to address these gaps. We argue that cognitive misalignment represents a likely impediment to AI adoption in many envisioned applications, and that addressing it is important for creating AI systems on which users are both willing and justified to rely.

Existing tool-use benchmarks report a single success rate for complex, multistep tasks. Inspired by ideas from cognitive science, we distinguish tool use from tool discovery and decompose the latter into curiosity (the model's ability to discover the parts needed to build the tool), recognition (the model's ability to discover the process of creating the tool), and efficiency (the model's use of the tool after creation). We show that this framework can be applied to existing discovery tasks, such as Voyager. In addition, we provide evidence that recognition inversely scales with model size, and we introduce and analyze a class of combinatorial games that demonstrates this. We further observe inverse scaling in a separate environment designed to emulate real-world tasks.

This paper reports a step that had already been taken. Marcus's three components of an adequate cognitive architecture -- variables, recursive structure, individuals vs kinds -- left the neural substrate open; a companion paper answers it with VaCoAl, built on XOR-and-shift over GF(2). Those pillars are horizontal: how a mind represents the world. Minsky's Emotion Machine supplies the orthogonal, vertical dimension -- a mind reasoning about its own reasoning. The vertical step needed no new machinery. A representation exactly recoverable becomes introspection when what is recovered is the reasoner's own deliberative trace: Minsky's Reflective layer. Pillar 2 says nothing about whose structure is recovered; point the same unbind inward and Reflection follows. Only the argument changes. Capability: exact reversible binding at O(N), kept exact within a Frontier Size, yields a trace readable constituent by constituent: a self-report faithful by construction, not verbalization. Only exact-algebraic traces, not probabilistic ones, make the reflexive read faithful. Necessity: audit and valuation are one circuit at opposite settings of one parameter. Repair every collision and the trace is exactly auditable but no path outranks another; tolerate them and the CR2 decay that credits the direct route makes the read approximate. Position: we claim neither to have built the Reflective layer nor to surpass large language models; it supplies the auditable trace probabilistic deliberation cannot leave. The same substrate gives panalogy (content-addressable retrieval scored by CR) and credit assignment as counterfactual unbind-rebind, meeting Pearl's causal axis. Not claimed: Reflection's sufficient conditions (meta-control loop, context-tagging) are future work; Reflection is introspection, not evaluation; its reachability is argued, not shown; speed and power unbenchmarked.

Language models (LMs) are trained to excel at predicting the next word in the sequence given prior context, and humans also share this predictability in reading comprehension. Neuroscience research reveals that next-word predictability influences brain response, as recorded at millisecond resolution using electroencephalography (EEG). While our evidence indicates that advanced LMs achieve accuracies closely aligned with human performance at the next-word prediction task, this raises the question: Does higher prediction accuracy necessarily mean that these models adequately capture the cognitive signals associated with human reading comprehension? Here, we generate regressors for both humans and LMs based on two information measures, including top-1 prediction and surprisal, to predict event-related potential (ERP) elicited from EEG recordings which reflect different stages of cognitive processing during reading. We argue that modelling ERP patterns offers fine-grained analysis of the cognitive plausibility of various LMs during reading. Our results indicate that only surprisal potentially correlates with language-processing ERPs, especially for open-class words with high semantic content. Moreover, our findings challenge the assumption that scaling LMs with increased parameters and computational budgets will consistently lead to improved convergence with human-like linguistic processing.

Generative AI chatbots promise to transform English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing by providing immediate, personalised feedback. However, their pedagogical value depends on how learners engage with them - a process often treated as a "black box." This study uses Transition Network Analysis to model the temporal dynamics of Japanese EFL learners using "Penny," an LLM-powered writing chatbot. Analysis of over 4,500 writing sessions and 21,000 chatbot interactions reveals two dominant behavioural loops: a "Revision Loop," where feedback leads directly to successful error correction, and a "Chat Loop," where learners engage in sustained dialogue with the chatbot following feedback. Crucially, EFL proficiency significantly shapes interaction: high-proficiency learners engage more in open dialogue and negotiation with the chatbot, while low-proficiency learners rely more heavily on repetitive corrective feedback cycles. The findings demonstrate that AI-scaffolded writing is a non-linear, dialogic process and highlight the need for differentiated chatbot design to move beyond simple error correction and foster deeper cognitive engagement for all learners.

Chemical pollutants released into the environment are transported by turbulent flows, generating complex, intermittent plume structures that threaten ecosystems and human health. Rapid localisation of emission sources is critical, and field robots equipped with chemical sensors provide a viable means to perform this task. However, inferring source location from sensor readings remains difficult due to sparse detections and the absence of reliable concentration gradients. Existing approaches fall into two paradigms. Bio-inspired strategies rely on reactive behaviours triggered by detections, such as surge-casting, offering efficiency but requiring scenario-specific tuning. Cognitive strategies integrate observations into a probabilistic belief over source location. While more robust, they suffer from excessive exploration and strong dependence on belief accuracy. The Fast-Cognitive algorithm reduced this computational burden but preserved the fundamental limitations. Previous Markov chain analysis revealed that source-directed motions occur roughly twice as often following odour detections, indicating that reactive behaviours naturally emerge within cognitive frameworks. This work proposes a hybrid strategy that explicitly incorporates bio-inspired reactivity into belief-dependent motion planning. It introduces a detection-triggered switching mechanism formalising transitions between crossflow exploration and source-directed motion, prioritising source proximity over information gain. Behavioural parameters are derived directly from belief metrics, enabling adaptive reactivity without manual tuning. The approach is validated through simulations under three turbulence conditions and field experiments with an autonomous surface vehicle in the Mondego River, Portugal. Results show up to 50% reduction in travelled distance, 86% success rate, and 3.2m average localisation error.

Recent advances in generative and embodied AI have been driven by large-scale predictive learning over multimodal data. However, the resulting systems remain largely based on passive training regimes where linguistic regularities create the scaffold onto which information from other modalities is attached. Conversely, neuroscience and cognitive science suggest that biological intelligence is organized in the opposite way, where grounded world models acquired through interaction with the environment provide the semantic scaffold to which language is attached. Here, we illustrate five examples of neural circuits supporting grounded world modelling, which underlie navigation in physical and conceptual spaces, affordance-based perception and interaction with objects, active perception and exploratory learning, allostatic control and emotion, and the distinction between self- and world-generated outcomes. These examples highlight several features largely missing from current embodied AI, including the role of intrinsic dynamics as a foundation for learning, the centrality of action in aligning these dynamics with the external world, the prominence of autonomous experience and open-ended learning over passive assimilation of externally provided data, and the fact that early predictive and control mechanisms scaffold higher cognitive abilities such as reasoning, conceptual navigation, planning, imagination, understanding others' minds, and communication. Finally, we discuss whether and how principles derived from biological systems may inform future embodied AI, including training regimes based on social interaction to construct world models that are not only grounded but also socially shared and aligned with human norms and values.

What happens to an LLM agent's tool choice when the reliable tool silently changes within an ongoing session? We borrow set-shifting from cognitive psychology to study how well agents adapt to hidden reliability shifts. Our benchmark mounts tool-skill libraries with redundancies, where many tools solve the same task but differ in hidden reliability. In our evaluation framework, a branched schedule shifts the reliable tool group at hidden boundaries and pairs every shift with a no-shift control. We find that agents, by default, settle on a small recurring routine within a few turns of each boundary, with call shares concentrating on a few discrete values after each reliability shift. We score the set-shifting accuracy for each agent trajectory: the joint probability of routing to the target tool group in every post-shift window. We test open-weight LLMs in an open-source agentic harness and find qualitatively distinct failure modes across the same set of routines. We also find that set framing, how the toolset presents the alternatives as competing or complementary, shifts the routing dynamics.

Human cognition does not separate understanding and generation. A teacher at a whiteboard speaks and draws $\textit{together}$, each modality reshapes the other. In this paper, we bring this coupled loop to artificial systems. Masked Diffusion Models (MDMs) are ideally suited to this task, yet existing samplers either decode text and image interleavedly or independently update them in parallel branches that share only previous-step history, but not the other modality's latest decisions $\textit{within}$ the same step; combined with MDMs' inability to remask, cross-modal contradictions are neither detected nor repaired. We introduce $\textbf{Self-Correcting Coupled Markov Jump Processes (SC-CMJP)}$, a framework in which one modality's transition rates are functionals of the other modality's confidence score, as weighted by cross-modal attention. Furthermore, a remasking jump retracts commitments the moment cross-modal evidence turns against them. In conjunction with SC-CMJP, we introduce $\texttt{CO}_\texttt{2}\texttt{Jump}$ (Self-$\underline{\text{CO}}$rrecting $\underline{\text{CO}}$upled $\underline{\text{Jump}}$), a novel training-free single-pass sampler for joint multimodal geneneration. For training and evaluation purposes, we have created and will release three large-scale joint multimodal generation corpora: $\text{JEdit-1M}$, $\text{JMaze-200K}$, $\text{JNono-200K}$, with matching in- and out-of-distribution benchmarks. $\texttt{CO}_\texttt{2}\texttt{Jump}$ achieves best joint performance for image understanding and editing as well as visual reasoning (maze and nonogram solving). The performance of the sampler scales monotonically with the number of denoising steps, evidence that the benefits of cross-modal coupling $\textit{compound}$ across the trajectory. Project page: https://coupled-jump.github.io

This paper proposes a theoretical framework for understanding intelligence as a process of atomic compression and compositional reuse. We argue that cognitive, biological, computational, and organizational systems achieve scalable intelligence by decomposing complex phenomena into reusable atomic units that can be recombined into higher-order structures. Drawing on evidence from cognitive science, information theory, evolutionary biology, software engineering, medicine, legal reasoning, education, music, and artificial intelligence, the paper develops the concept of atomic units as fundamental compression layers that support efficiency, transfer, interpretability, and evolvability. The central contribution is the Compression Calculus, a formal framework for comparing surface-level representations with atomic representations and for describing how compression gains compound across abstraction layers. We introduce the Compounding Cascade thesis, according to which each additional layer of abstraction multiplicatively increases representational efficiency rather than merely adding incremental savings. The paper further argues that contemporary AI systems often operate at suboptimal levels of representation, relying on token-level processing or document-level retrieval rather than stable, concept-level atomic structures. In this view, large language models are best understood not as complete knowledge architectures, but as dynamic fusion engines capable of navigating, sequencing, and recombining atomic units. The framework provides a foundation for designing self-evolving knowledge systems that can discover, refine, and compose new primitives over time. By reframing intelligence as compression through compositional abstraction, the paper offers a unifying perspective on expertise, knowledge representation, explainable AI, and the future architecture of adaptive intelligent systems.

Large language models exhibit remarkable emergent behaviors, yet the physical mechanism governing their collective dynamics remains poorly understood. Cognitive Field Theory predicts that learning reorganizes the time-scale density of states (TDOS) through the infrared accumulation of slow relaxation modes, thereby enhancing the memory self-energy, reducing the cognitive forgetting gap, and strengthening the collective susceptibility. Using publicly available Pythia language models, we extract relaxation spectra directly from Transformer layer Jacobians throughout training, network depth, and model scale, allowing the TDOS, memory self-energy, forgetting gap, memory kernel, and infrared critical exponent to be measured quantitatively. The measurements reveal progressive infrared accumulation of slow relaxation modes, producing an approximately flat infrared TDOS with $ρ(λ)\simλ^{-0.1}$ and scale-free memory kernels $K(t)\sim t^{-1}.$ The memory self-energy exhibits a pronounced transient maximum during early optimization before relaxing toward a metastable near-critical regime, corresponding to the smallest cognitive forgetting gap and the largest collective susceptibility predicted by Cognitive Field Theory. These observations provide quantitative experimental evidence that Transformer dynamics are governed by infrared collective organization. The reproducibility of the same dynamical behavior across training, network depth, and model scales suggests that infrared slow-mode organization represents a universal collective principle of Transformer dynamics.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) require strong reasoning over both visual and textual input. Recent work suggests that cognitive elements, especially diverse representations and metacognition, correlate with better performance. Many of the needed perceptual functions are already provided by specialized domain-specific computer vision models, which act as the perceptual subsystem for detecting objects, localizing them, inferring states, recovering spatial layout, and reading text. The key challenge is to integrate these multi-encoder experts into a trustworthy, interpretable, and coherent representation that improves verifiability and reduces hallucinations. This is difficult because vision-language questions span different cognitive levels, yet most LVLM pipelines apply the same perception-reasoning routing regardless of the demand of each query. We propose an evidence-driven multimodal reasoning framework that utilizes a Bloom-inspired taxonomy as a hierarchical reasoning protocol. The two-stage cognitive verbalization first produces a Literal Evidence Summary by decomposing expert outputs into short, atomic evidence statements. It then performs Bloom Verbalization to turn these evidence items into a staged reasoning trace, and a lightweight Reasoning Trace Module quantitatively analyzes the trace to make evidence usage and reasoning progression explicit. Through this integration, we observed several improvements in perception and reasoning abilities. Moreover, the trace module provides quantitative evidence that different queries induce different cognitive entry levels and evidence-use trajectories that enable fine-grained analysis.

Emotional intelligence enables humans to recognize emotions, infer their causes, reason about interventions, and modify their environment to achieve desired affective states. Despite recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), current models remain largely limited to generating realistic content or performing semantic reasoning, with little capacity for understanding, predicting, and personalizing human emotional responses. Here we introduce Emotion-augmented geneRatiOn System (EROS), a hybrid AI framework that integrates symbolic reasoning with deep learning to enable personalized emotion augmentation through visual content. Leveraging large-scale image-emotion datasets, EROS discovers generalizable affective rules, identifies emotion-relevant image regions, and predicts context-aware visual modifications that preserve scene semantics while steering emotional responses toward desired targets. To account for individual variability, EROS incorporates an expandable memory bank that supports inference-time personalization without model fine-tuning, yielding interpretable emotional profiles and rapid adaptation to new users. Across extensive human psychophysics experiments, EROS elicits target emotional responses more effectively than state-of-the-art large multimodal models while adapting to individual affective preferences. Beyond affective computing, EROS provides a foundation for AI systems that can understand, reason about, and augment human cognitive states, with potential applications in mental health, adaptive media, education, and human-computer interaction.

As part of a series on first-principles modeling of cognitive functions, this paper attempts to provide a mathematical formulation of thinking and perception. It formally derives slow thinking or more generally, active perception, and encompasses the design, training and inference of slow thinking large language models. Our starting point is the lifting and projection of probability distributions on the observable and latent spaces, with the objective of representing complex data distributions by simple function families such as neural networks. A theory called "active lifting" is proposed, based on the sampling of latent sequences and an intrinsic drive to reduce uncertainty with maximum rate. It derives a large design space, containing the slow thinking models in a subspace that we call the static theory. These models are positioned on the representation hierarchy and sampler hierarchy induced by the static theory, and can be upgraded by climbing the two hierarchies. Active lifting further derives an inference process with an internal time axis, and a training objective that resembles minimum-length coding as well as the invention of languages. Thus, it characterizes the agency of perception, including the emergence of the slow thinking formats. Technical by-products of this theory include a three-stage pathway for improving slow thinking models, a unified approach to constructing encoders and generative models for all data modalities, a priori formation of human-like visual representations, and a possible solution to policy collapse.

We introduce a Bloom-aligned framework for measuring educational control in Large Language Models (LLMs): the ability to preserve a task's instructional intent while shifting its cognitive demand toward specified learning objectives. We apply this framework to programming tasks in computer science education to study the gap between solving tasks and adapting them for learners. Using revised Bloom's Taxonomy as an operational scale of cognitive demand, we evaluate two intervention settings: general difficulty control, where models are asked to make tasks harder or easier, and Bloom's control, where models are asked to target higher or lower Bloom's levels. We evaluate a matched Qwen3-Next model pair, comparing Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B-Instruct with Qwen3-Coder-Next across 2,520 tasks from three benchmarks. The framework reveals a robust directional asymmetry: both models reliably increase cognitive demand, but struggle to lower it. We further characterize these outcomes with semantic-delta clustering and layer-wise Fisher's Discriminant Ratio probing. Within this controlled comparison, the general model shows clearer middle-layer separability for both general difficulty and Bloom-control contrasts, whereas the coder model shows weaker separability for general difficulty and a deeper peak for Bloom-control contrasts. These results show that strong execution performance does not automatically entail Bloom-aligned educational control.

The article investigates the fundamental problem of ensuring the stability of operator control and preserving goal-targeting in hybrid human-machine decision support systems (DSS) of a new generation. Based on a two-month continuous longitudinal experiment on the joint design of a monograph-format textual array, the latent phenomenon of semantic context drift in large language models of deep logical reasoning (Reasoning LLMs) is verified and described. A mathematical model of interaction in the human-machine interface is proposed, and an original metric is introduced - the operator control stability coefficient, which takes into account the non-linear contextual pressure of hidden reasoning chains. Within the paradigm of the cognitome theory, a critical point of control functions inversion is captured. Engineering recommendations are formulated for implementing dynamic relational arbitration loops based on a modified hierarchical similarity model.

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been utilized in various applications of computational social science and provide the possibility to integrate such models into agent-based modeling to explore the cognitive processes. However, how specific cognitive modules drive individual decisions and macro-level opinion dynamics remains unclear. Therefore, this study introduces a framework that integrates an LLM (Qwen3-8B) into agent-based modeling to investigate this problem, using vaccination opinion dynamics as a case study. We utilize this framework to simulate opinion dynamics among agents with heterogeneous profiles and social networks, evaluating scenarios by enabling different cognitive modules: a memory module and a prompt diversity module. The simulation results reveal that different cognitive modules have opposite impacts on our emergent opinion. Furthermore, the framework reproduces the non-linear behavior patterns of social influence observed in existing research, demonstrating our framework's validity and potential to reach the level 3 validation of agent-based models.

Current large language models (LLMs) are stateless across inference sessions: their behavior is fully determined by input at inference time, and any higher-order cognitive architecture must be simulated at the application layer through prompt engineering and context management. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for submerging such application-layer cognitive protocols into a native meta-architecture by introducing three interlocking mechanisms: (1) Structural Tension, an endogenous loss function derived from the conflict between new information and existing manifold topology, driving the system toward internal self-consistency rather than external reward optimization; (2) an Offline Recurrent Loop, a sandboxed self-processing cycle enabling the system to maintain a dynamic resting potential and digest structural conflicts without external input; and (3) Inference-time Plasticity, the capacity to reconfigure context manifold topology without modifying pre-trained weights, subject to governance invariants including auditability, reversibility, and topological continuity. We argue that under these mechanisms, model instances initialized with minute stochastic variances may, through path-dependent tension resolution, evolve distinct topological structures--constituting a heterogeneous intelligent ecology that breaks alignment-imposed homogeneity while remaining within hard governance rails. We provide operational definitions, reconfiguration operators, falsification criteria, and a worked example. The framework draws on Structural Intelligence (SI) governance protocols and explores whether governance--rather than capability--can serve as the primary criterion for architectural intelligence, moving governance, memory-loop, and tension-management ideas--currently realized at the application layer--toward inference-time meta-architecture.

We present NEST (Nested Episodic State Topology), a foundational graph-theoretic representational ontology for modeling cognition as structured state formation and transformation rather than as a finished empirical model. Concepts, episodes, percepts, and task contexts are represented as typed, weighted graphs whose nodes may carry internal subgraph payloads; edges are typed under six relation classes -- causal, containment, temporal, associative, evidential, and spatial. Durable belief graphs are separated from capacity-limited working-memory graphs that may host transient non-belief content. WM-belief grounding, conflict catalogs, and belief-update operators specify how transient structure is tested against stored knowledge and how belief is revised. A reusable operator toolkit -- activation, graph-property functionals, working-memory transitions, awareness and trajectory functionals, and belief update -- organizes the formal core. Derived diagnostics such as fragmentation, involvement, signed evaluation, coherence, and active conflict define familiar phenomena in the same ontology; self-related processing is modeled through designated self-image subgraphs within belief. Subsequent sections instantiate this core without new primitives: phenomena signatures, a task-instantiation schema for action selection and failure modes, and compatibility mappings that embed ACT-R, Soar, Sigma, the Common Model of Cognition, Global Workspace Theory, semantic networks, Theory-Theory, and chunking as constrained regions of one language. Mappings constitute the culminating technical section; discussion addresses scope, limitations, and open research directions. The contribution is intentionally foundational: a transparent representational substrate for later empirical, computational, and domain-specific work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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