Cognitive Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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