Cognitive Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Architectural spatial intelligence, the ability to recognize and infer architectural space, is fundamental to tasks such as robot navigation, embodied interaction, and 3D scene understanding and generation. Although extensive research has evaluated the basic spatial skills of Vision-Language Models (VLMs) such as relative orientation, distance comparison, and object counting, these tasks cover only the most elementary levels of spatial cognition and largely overlook higher-level cognition of architectural space, including layout understanding, circulation patterns, and functional zoning. In this work, we present ArchSIBench, a Benchmark for Architectural Spatial Intelligence based on the perspectives from architecture, cognitive science, and psychology. ArchSIBench covers five core dimensions: perception, reasoning, navigation, transformation, and configuration, comprising 17 fine-grained subtasks. Through careful manual annotation by experts with architectural backgrounds, we construct 3,000 question-answer pairs to enable comprehensive evaluation of architectural spatial intelligence. Based on ArchSIBench, we evaluate various VLMs and find that the architectural spatial intelligence of most models shows significant differences from human baselines; additionally, models exhibit substantial variability across capability dimensions. Some state-of-the-art models can approach the level of human evaluators without architectural training. However, a clear gap remains compared to human evaluators with architectural training, particularly in spatial transformation and configuration reasoning. We believe that ArchSIBench will provide important insights and systematic resources for measuring and advancing the architectural spatial intelligence of VLMs. The dataset and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ArchSIBench/ArchSIBench.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into high-stakes decision-making. Inspired by the theory of \emph{inattentional blindness} in human cognition, we investigate whether LLMs, trained on human-preferred corpora that embed attentional biases, exhibit a similar limitation: \emph{failing to attend to subtle yet important contextual cues under explicit task instructions}. To evaluate this, we introduce the task of \textbf{explicit-implicit reasoning} and present \textbf{MixRea}, a benchmark of 2,246 multiple-choice questions across 9 reasoning types with varying distributions of explicit and implicit information. Evaluation of 21 advanced LLMs shows that even the best-performing reasoning model (Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieves only 42.8% consistency, revealing widespread inattentional blindness. To mitigate this, we propose \textbf{Potential Relation Completion Prompting (PRCP)}, a prompting method that improves reasoning by recovering overlooked causal relations. Further analysis shows that this limitation persists across diverse multi-source reasoning tasks, highlighting the need for more cognitively aligned models.

Conversational AI has now reached billions of users, yet existing datasets capture only what people say, not what they think. We introduce ThoughtTrace, the first large-scale dataset that pairs real-world multi-turn human--AI conversations with users' self-reported thoughts: their reasons for sending prompts and reactions to assistant responses. ThoughtTrace comprises 1,058 users, 2,155 conversations, 17,058 turns, and 10,174 thought annotations collected across 20 language models. Our analysis shows that ThoughtTrace captures long-horizon, topically diverse interactions, and that thoughts are semantically distinct from messages, difficult for frontier LLMs to infer from context, diverse in content, and tied to conversation stages. We further demonstrate the utility of thoughts for downstream modeling. First, thoughts improve user-behavior prediction as inference-time context. Second, thought-guided rewrites provide fine-grained alignment signals for training personalized assistants. Together, ThoughtTrace establishes user thoughts as a new data modality for studying the cognitive dynamics behind human--AI interaction and provides a foundation for building assistants that better understand and adapt to users' latent goals, preferences, and needs.

Large Language Models are increasingly proposed as cognitive components for robotic systems, yet their opaque decision processes make it difficult to explain success or failure in closed-loop embodied tasks. Following an empirical AI methodology, we study embodied LLM agents behaviorally by varying the information available to the agent and measuring the resulting changes in behavior. Using the Lockbox, a sequential mechanical puzzle with hidden interdependencies, we evaluate LLMs across RGB, RGB-D, and ground-truth symbolic observations in a physical robotic setup and use controlled simulation to probe the resulting behavior. Counterintuitively, agents perform best under raw RGB input and worst under perfect ground-truth observations. In simulation, we probe this effect by randomly flipping perceived action outcomes and find that moderate noise improves performance, peaking at a 40% flip probability with a 2.85-fold success rate increase over the noise-free baseline. Further analysis links this gain to a reduction in repetitive action loops. These findings suggest that success rates alone are insufficient for evaluating LLMs, as measured performance may reflect the interaction between perceptual errors and reasoning failures rather than robust problem solving.

AI-based code assistants are transforming software development, yet we lack empirical evidence on how they affect developers' cognitive processes. We present a multisite study investigating the neurophysiological correlates of AI-assisted programming through a within-subjects crossover design. We recruited participants at two universities (Bari, Italy, and Copenhagen, Denmark) and collected electroencephalography, eye-tracking, electrodermal activity, and heart rate variability data alongside a rubric-based performance score and self-reported workload across six dimensions using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We tested four hypotheses addressing physiological differences between AI-assisted and non-assisted conditions, the moderating role of developer experience, the association between physiology and performance, and the alignment between subjective perceptions and objective measures. Under AI assistance, the EEG $θ/α$ ratio was lower during the first task and the gaze blink rate was higher during the second, both consistent with reduced cognitive engagement when developers offload generative effort to the model. This pattern did not differ between undergraduate and graduate students. Electrodermal activity correlated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. Among the six NASA-TLX dimensions of self-reported workload, only Physical demand was associated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. These findings suggest that AI-assisted programming is not a faster version of solo coding but a cognitively distinct activity, with implications for the design of AI assistants and for biometric monitoring in AI-augmented development.

Generative agents based on large language models reproduce believable human behavior in cooperative settings, but how they should reason in situations where rule-breaking may be required, such as fire evacuation or authority-supervised emergency, remains poorly characterized. We propose PAVE (Perception, Assessment, Verdict, Emulation), a novel four-module cognitive architecture that addresses this gap end to end: (i) Perception extracts a structured context with explicit authority distance, peer behaviors, and severity-tagged situational cues; (ii) Assessment scores the context along five scalars including an explicit legitimacy judgment that checks necessity, proportionality, and absence of alternatives; (iii) Verdict decides to comply or violate under a hard legitimacy gate, with a per-agent threshold elicited from the persona; (iv) Emulation enacts the verdict and scopes the violation to the rule the trigger justifies. We instantiate PAVE in Voville, a tile-based traffic environment forked from Smallville, and evaluate across three scenarios, four LLM backbones, and a focused ablation. PAVE agents satisfy four properties simultaneously: legitimate violation (only when a trigger justifies it), authority deference (officer instructions override even high legitimacy), bounded scope (violations confined to the targeted rule), and recovery (baseline restored once the trigger ends). PAVE agents make more structured and interpretable decisions than vanilla across all four properties, and human evaluators rate them as more plausible. Ablating the legitimacy gate reproduces vanilla-like failures. We release Voville, the PAVE prompts and code, and the evaluation pipeline.

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.

The four dominant learning theories of behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism show significant conceptual limitations as generative artificial intelligence (AI) proliferates in educational settings. These frameworks were formulated before the emergence of AI systems capable of generating, synthesizing, and reasoning about knowledge. This article critically examines each learning theory and identifies assumptions challenged by the affordances of generative AI. Drawing on research in distributed cognition, extended mind, human-AI collaboration, AI literacy, cognitive offloading, and metacognition, the article proposes Generativism as a learning theory for the generative AI age. Generativism posits that learning increasingly occurs through the iterative co-construction of knowledge between human learners and AI systems. The proposed framework is organized around four constructs (epistemic partnership, distributed agency, generative literacy, and adaptive metacognition) and four principles specifying the relations among them. The framework offers a foundation for rethinking instructional design, learning, assessment, and expertise development in contexts where generative AI plays an integral role in cognition.

Although artificial intelligence (AI) now matches or exceeds human performance across numerous cognitive tasks, creativity remains a highly contested frontier. As AI systems based on large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in research and innovation, it is essential to understand and augment their creativity. Here we demonstrate that multi-agent LLM teams not only surpass single agents, but also substantially outperform human teams in creativity (Cohen's d=1.50) across 4,541 multi-agent LLM ideas and 341 human-team ideas on six diverse problem-solving tasks. This advantage is driven by novelty while maintaining comparable usefulness. To investigate the generative processes in both groups, we represent conversations as paths through semantic space using neural language model representations. Both LLM and human teams produce more creative ideas when conversations range widely rather than staying centered on a single theme (low global coherence). However, the additional patterns that predict creativity differ: LLM teams benefit from efficient exploration (high semantic spread, shorter paths), while human teams benefit from maintaining smooth conversational flow (high local coherence, frequent pivots). Additionally, we identify model choice and discussion structure as orthogonal design levers that together explain 26.8% of variance in LLM conversational dynamics, paving the way for systematic approaches to developing multi-agent systems with augmented creative capabilities.

Power differences shape human communication through well documented socio cognitive effects, including language coordination, pronoun usage, authority bias, and harmful compliance. We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar behaviors when assigned high or low status personas. Using personas from diverse professions, we simulate multi turn, power asymmetric dialogues (e.g., principal teacher, justice lawyer) and measure (i) language coordination, (ii) pronoun usage, (iii) persuasion success, and (iv) compliance with unsafe requests. Our results show that LLMs show key socio-cognitive effects of power, albeit with nuances and variability, linking simulated interactions to both desirable and unsafe behaviors.

Von Economo neurons (VENs) are selectively lost in behavioural-variant frontotemporal dementia (bvFTD) and reduced in autism spectrum conditions (ASC), yet their computational role in social learning remains unexplained. We train a spiking neural network (the VENCircuit) embedding VEN-like projection neurons (K=40, 2% of total) in a recurrent pyramidal circuit across 50 matched random initialisations with and without VENs. The network is trained on a controlled binary classification task; we make no claim to model social cognition directly. VEN-intact networks converged in 49/50 cases (98%) versus 35/50 (70%) for VEN-ablated networks (Fisher's exact OR=21.0, 95% CI 2.7-167, p=8.7e-5). Failed ablated networks showed complete absence of learning, inconsistent with a speed-of-learning account. Phase-ablation experiments show VEN removal is most disruptive during mid-training (epochs 5-25), when a co-adaptive dependency forms in the pyramidal circuit. We derive a formal account showing VENs provide a direct gradient pathway immune to Jacobian instabilities affecting the recurrent circuit. Inference-time VEN ablation caused a significant performance drop (Wilcoxon p=0.022), ranging from no change (16/20 networks) to catastrophic collapse (0.989 to 0.620). VENs function as acquisition scaffolds whose developmental absence produces stochastic learning failure - a computational analogue of variable social skill acquisition in ASC - with falsifiable predictions for organoid and electrophysiology studies.

Algorithmic feeds have become primary environments for encountering information online, yet while they shape what people see, less is known about how sustained feed exposure shapes how people write. Drawing on Cultivation Theory, we examine whether algorithmic feeds function as online environments that leave measurable traces in users' language. We leverage a large-scale longitudinal dataset of 235M posts by 4M users on Bluesky, and conduct a quasi-experimental study matching an initial pool of 368,513 users exposed to one of three feeds -- News, Science, and Blacksky -- with a pool of 2,001,915 active control users who did not engage with any of these feeds. We examine linguistic evolution across three dimensions: lexico-semantics, psycholinguistics, and topics. We find that users exposed to these feeds show significantly greater stylistic accommodation, semantic alignment, and register formalization than matched controls. These effects vary markedly by feed identity -- Blacksky produces the deepest psycholinguistic restructuring, with significant shifts in cognitive processing, affective expression, and pronoun use, while News and Science effects are largely confined to register and topical focus. Regression models reveal that reposting is the most consistent predictor of linguistic convergence across all feeds, whereas posting and bookmarking show feed-dependent effects, with effects differing more than fourfold across feeds. Our work extends Cultivation Theory beyond belief formation to linguistic behavior, demonstrating that feeds function as persistent linguistic environments that gradually shape what and how users write online. Our work has implications for studying algorithmic influence, online identity formation, and the design and governance of feed-based platforms that mediate online interactions.

While AI-generated hallucinations pose considerable risks, the underlying cognitive mechanisms by which humans can successfully recognize or be misled by these hallucinations remain unclear. To address this problem, this paper explores humans' neural dynamics to characterize how the brain processes hallucinated content. We record EEG signals from 27 participants while they are performing a verification task to judge the correctness of image descriptions generated by a multi-modal large language model (MLLM). Based on an averaged event-related potential (ERP) study, we reveal that multiple cognitive processes, e.g., semantic integration, inferential processing, memory retrieval, and cognitive load, exhibit distinct patterns when humans process hallucinated versus non-hallucinated content. Notably, neural responses to hallucinations that were misjudged versus correctly judged by human participants showed significant differences. This indicates that misjudged AI-generated hallucinations failed to trigger the standard neurocognitive fact verification pathway.

Personalized exercise recommendation dynamically aligns pedagogical resources with individual knowledge mastery, which is crucial for satisfying students' dynamic learning needs in modern education. The field is currently driven by two dominant paradigms: Item-Level Exercise Recommendation (ILER) optimizes for immediate single-step state transitions, while Path-Level Exercise Recommendation (PLER) constructs coherent learning paths to maximize cumulative gains. Despite sharing the same ultimate objective, disparate evaluation setups have kept these two lines of research isolated, hindering unified benchmarking and fair comparison. To fill the gap, in this paper, we present a Unified Benchmark for Exercise Recommendation (UniER), a comprehensive evaluation framework that unifies ILER and PLER. Specifically, we introduce Weighted Cognitive Gain (WCG) as a unified metric to measure cross-paradigm algorithmic performance. Our benchmark encompasses 9 datasets spanning four generation methods, facilitating the comparison of 18 representative ILER/PLER methods. Through multi-dimensional analyses covering effectiveness, generalizability, robustness, and efficiency, our results reveal the systematic dominance of PLER and expose the pedagogical failure of ILER's fragmented recommendations under extreme sparsity and noise. Furthermore, we provide an open-source codebase of UniER to foster reproducible research and outline potential directions for future investigations.

Understanding why some sequential planning problems are harder than others requires models that go beyond average performance. They should capture the specific pattern of which problems are hard, and ideally fail in the same way people do when planning capacity is reduced. We apply AICON, a reactive gradient-descent framework developed for robotic manipulation, to the Tower of London test, a cognitive test used to assess planning in Parkinson's disease, mild cognitive impairment, and stroke. Without any lookahead planning or knowledge of human cognition, AICON reproduces the fine-grained human difficulty ordering across 24 problems better than structural task parameters and generalizes to held-out problems in a leave-two-out evaluation. Crucially, AICON outperforms a planning baseline for groups with reduced planning capacity while the planning baseline better captures healthy controls. This dissociation was predicted by the original AICON paper, which noted that the model's failure modes resemble those of Parkinson's patients who struggle with goal hierarchies but not move counts. This suggests that as planning capacity is reduced, human behavior shifts toward the reactive mode AICON models. The finding extends a broader pattern: AICON, originally built for robotics, now captures aspects of biological behavior across perception, eye movements, and sequential planning, suggesting its core abstraction reflects something real about how biological systems are organized.

This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of neural activation patterns across six distinct large language model (LLM) architectures, examining their performance on twelve cognitive task categories. Through systematic measurement of final activation values, attention entropy, and sparsity patterns, we reveal fundamental differences in how encoder and decoder architectures process diverse cognitive tasks. Our analysis of 144 task-model combinations demonstrates that mathematical reasoning consistently produces the highest attention entropy across all architectures, while decoder models exhibit significantly higher sparsity patterns compared to encoder models. The findings provide critical insights into the computational characteristics of modern language models and their task-specific neural behaviors, with implications for model selection and optimization in big data applications.

While existing text-to-speech (TTS) models exhibit high expressiveness, fine-grained control over composite instructions remains challenging due to the structural mismatch between discrete textual intents and continuous acoustic realizations. Inspired by human cognitive decoupling, we introduce AgentSteerTTS, a multi-agent closed-loop framework designed for intent-faithful expressive control of composite instructions. First, in our framework, an adversarial disentanglement agent mitigates speaker-emotion leakage by learning separable identity and emotion-prosody subspaces with leakage-suppressing regularization. Next, a Dual-Stream Anchoring Controller grounds abstract intents using a large-scale acoustic prototype library: a Retrieval Agent selects expressive anchors, while a Synthesis Agent fuses them into continuous control vectors via gated attention. Finally, a Fast-Slow Feedback Agent refines output intensity through latent gradient correction and resolves semantic-acoustic mismatches using high-level perceptual critique. Experiments on a composite-instruction benchmark and public test sets show that AgentSteerTTS yields consistent and significant improvements to the baselines, demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Long-horizon household tasks demand robust high-level planning and sustained reasoning capabilities, which are largely overlooked by existing embodied AI benchmarks that emphasize short-horizon navigation or manipulation and rely on fixed task categories. We introduce LongAct, a benchmark designed to evaluate planning-level autonomy in long-horizon household tasks specified through free-form instructions. By abstracting away embodiment-specific low-level control, LongAct isolates high-level cognitive capabilities such as instruction understanding, dependency management, memory maintenance, and adaptive planning. We further propose HoloMind, a VLM-driven agent with a DAG-based long-horizon hierarchical planner, a Multimodal Spatial Memory for persistent world modeling, an Episodic Memory for experience reuse, and a global Critic for reflective supervision. Experiments with GPT-5 and Qwen3-VL models show that HoloMind substantially improves long-horizon performance while reducing reliance on model scale. Even top models achieve only 59% goal completion and 16% full-task success, underscoring the difficulty of LongAct and the need for stronger long-horizon planning in embodied agents.

Hospital pharmacists make high-stakes decisions to mitigate drug shortages under uncertainty, time pressure, and patient risk. Interviews revealed that pharmacists focus attention on a small subset of drugs, limiting cognitive effort to the most urgent cases. Motivated by these findings, we formalize a bounded-rational, attention-guided decision framework that dynamically decomposes drugs into a subset for high-cost reasoning and a complementary subset for low-cost monitoring. We develop two agents: an Expert Agent that applies attention weights derived from pharmacist interviews, and a Learner Agent that adapts attention allocation over time through experience. Across simulated scenarios spanning short to long horizons, we show that attention-guided planning supports stable decision-making without complete state reasoning. These results suggest that a primary decision is not what action to take, but where to allocate cognitive effort, and that attention-guided, satisficing strategies can reduce problem complexity while maintaining stable performance.

Cognitive operations are a rising concern in the geopolitical sphere, a quiet yet rigorous fight for public perception and decision making. While such operations have been extensively studied in the context of bot-driven amplification, the emergence of generative AI introduces a new set of capabilities that may have fundamentally altered how these operations are designed and executed. The possible evolution of cognitive operation via generative AI puts nation states vulnerable without proper mitigation strategies. To address this, we compared behavioral and linguistic coordination patterns in X (formerly Twitter) datasets from the 2016 and 2024 U.S. presidential elections. Utilizing a combined corpus of over 133,000 posts, we applied post-type distribution, semantic clustering, temporal synchrony analysis, and Jaccard-based lexical overlap measures. Findings suggest that the 2024 corpus exhibits a distinct pattern from 2016. Original content rose from 59% to 93% with retweets virtually disappeared; lexical overlap collapsed from a mean Jaccard score of 0.99 to 0.27, with posts converging on the same subject matter expressed in markedly different words; and temporal coordination shifted from pervasive cross-semantic synchrony to narratively concentrated co-occurrence. Taken together, these patterns point toward an operational logic organized around active content generation and narrative-specific targeting - characteristics consistent with generative AI involvement. These findings offer an empirical baseline for future research investigating generative AI's role in the cognitive operation pipeline, and as a practical reference point for security practitioners developing detection frameworks calibrated to the post-generative AI threat environment.

Existing agent memory remains predominantly reactive and retrieval-based, lacking the capacity to autonomously organize experience into persistent cognitive structure. Toward genuinely autonomous agents, we introduce CogniFold, a brain-inspired "always-on" agent memory designed for the next generation of proactive assistants. CogniFold continuously folds fragmented event streams into self-emerging cognitive structures, bootstrapping progressively higher-level cognition from incoming events and accumulated knowledge. We ground this by extending Complementary Learning Systems (CLS) theory from two layers (hippocampus, neocortex) to three, adding a prefrontal intent layer. Emulating the prefrontal cortex as the locus of intentional control and decision-making, CogniFold achieves this through graph-topology self-organization: cognitive structures proactively assemble under the stream, merge when semantically similar, decay when stale, relink through associative recall, and surface intents when concept-cluster density crosses a threshold. We evaluate structural formation using CogEval-Bench, demonstrating that CogniFold uniquely produces memory structures that match cognitive expectations and concept emergence. Furthermore, across eight downstream benchmarks -- two probing long-term conversational memory (LoCoMo, LongMemEval) and six spanning other cognitive domains -- we validate that CogniFold simultaneously performs robustly on conventional memory tasks. Our code is available at https://github.com/OpenNorve/CogniFold.

Humans intuitively solve complex problems by flexibly shifting among reasoning modes: they plan, execute, revise intermediate goals, resolve ambiguity through associative judgment, and apply formal procedures to well-specified subproblems. Current LLM agents lack this flexibility, as their scaffolds hard-code such reasoning decisions in advance. These scaffolds are effective when their prescribed structure matches the task, but brittle when solving the task requires adapting the structure of reasoning itself. We introduce Deep Reasoning -- an inference-time approach for constructing task-specific scaffolds through structured meta-reasoning. Deep Reasoning uses a formal language that represents meta-reasoning as executable decompositions over associative inference, formal computation, and recursive subproblem solving, enabling decomposition principles to be encoded as in-context examples that guide test-time scaffold construction. We instantiate this approach in a general-purpose agent (DOLORES) that distributes complex tasks across more controlled reasoning threads. We evaluate it against state-of-the-art scaffolding methods across four hard benchmarks: multi-hop reasoning, long-chain question answering, long-context aggregation, and deep research-style information seeking. DOLORES outperforms all evaluated scaffolds across three model sizes and two model families, improving over the strongest evaluated scaffold baseline by 24.8% on average. DOLORES distributes cognition across structured, lower-load reasoning threads, thereby reducing premature termination and hallucinations. This advantage can even bridge the scaling gap, with an 8B version surpassing all evaluated 32B baselines from the same family in more than half the settings. These results point toward future agentic systems that treat scaffolding as adaptive reasoning, constructing the structure each task requires just-in-time.

We propose uncommon self-knowledge (USK) as a candidate criterion for consciousness: synergistic information a system carries about itself that exists only in the joint of its subsystems and is destroyed by decomposition. Drawing on Gottwald's partition-lattice grounding of Partial Information Decomposition (PID), where redundancy corresponds to Aumann's common knowledge and synergy to the gap between separate and joint observation, we propose the synergistic component of self-directed information as a candidate formal signature for conscious processing. If correct, the framework would (1) offer a clean separation between consciousness and metacognition (synergistic vs. redundant self-knowledge), (2) provide principled resolutions to counterexamples that challenge IIT, GWT, and HOT, (3) be operationalizable via Partial Information Rate Decomposition (PIRD) with self-targeting, and (4) generate distinctive empirical predictions, the strongest being a GWT timing dissociation (consciousness correlates with pre-broadcast synergy formation, not broadcast itself) and a specific dissociation between self-report disruption and task-performance disruption under middle-layer perturbation in LLMs. The proposal is consistent with recent empirical findings that both anaesthesia and Alzheimer's disease specifically reduce synergistic information processing while preserving or increasing redundancy.

Artificial agents now generate behavior rich enough to invite trust, surprise, and concern, yet our evaluation tools still privilege capability scores over psychological structure. This paper argues that the philosophical impasse between two symmetrical errors (Artificial Mind Blindness, which dismisses psychological organization in non-biological systems, and Artificial Mind Projection, which infers human-like inner life from fluent behavior alone) can be circumvented not by resolving the consciousness question, but by introducing a disciplined measurement layer beneath it. Drawing on Michael Levin's continuum view of cognition as goal-directed competency across substrates, and on the methodological repertoire of mathematical psychology (Item Response Theory, Signal Detection Theory, Bayesian cognitive modeling, calibration analysis, cognitive-bias batteries), the paper develops Machine Psychometrics as a measurement science of latent behavioral, metacognitive, communicative, and self-modeling dispositions in artificial agents. Its operational core is the Machine Mindprint: a multidimensional, domain-bounded, versioned profile spanning calibration, source integrity, suggestibility resistance, context stability, expressive alignment, tool integrity, drift monitoring, and distributional grounding. A complementary Trust Protocol turns Mindprints into deployment decisions through probe batteries, perturbation testing, reliability and validity analysis, and longitudinal monitoring across high-stakes domains. The philosophical contribution is a third stance, Artificial Mind Discipline, that neither anthropomorphizes nor dismisses, neither presupposes consciousness nor forecloses it. The aim is not to humanize artificial agents, but to understand them precisely because they are not human, through measurement before judgment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning and tool use. However, the fundamental cognitive faculties essential for problem solving, including perception, reasoning, and memory, remain the stable core of intelligence. Unlike memorizing specific patterns, humans succeed in novel environments by applying these intrinsic faculties to adapt and optimize. Yet, whether LLMs possess this essential capacity, namely the ability to continuously refine solutions in response to dynamic environmental feedback, remains underexplored. To address this challenge, we introduce OPT-BENCH, a benchmark for evaluating self-improvement capabilities in large-scale search spaces. By combining 20 machine learning tasks with 10 classic NP-hard problems, OPT-BENCH provides a rigorous setting to assess whether agents can adapt through intrinsic self-reflection rather than rote tool application. We further propose OPT-Agent, a framework that emulates human-like cognitive adaptation. It operates through a general perception, memory, and reasoning loop, iteratively refining solutions based on environmental feedback. Through extensive experiments on 19 LLMs from 7 model families, including reasoning models, general models, and open-source models ranging from 3B to 235B parameters, we demonstrate that stronger models are more effective at leveraging feedback signals for self-improvement. However, this upper-bound adaptability remains fundamentally constrained by the models' base capacity, and even the most advanced LLMs still fall short of human expert performance.

Abstract concepts - justice, theory, availability - have no single perceivable referent; in the human brain, their meaning emerges from a web of experiences, affect, and social context. Do large language models (LLMs) ground abstract concepts in a similar way? We study this by replicating property-generation experiments from cognitive science on 21 frontier and open-weight LLMs. Across models and experiments, we find a consistent pattern: when compared to humans, models rely too heavily on word associations, and underproduce properties tied to emotion and internal states. This yields a large and consistent grounding gap: no model exceeds a Pearson correlation r=0.37 with human responses, compared to a human-to-human ceiling above r=0.9. To better interpret this gap, we also replicate a rating experiment on grounding categories and find that here LLMs align more closely with human judgment, and alignment improves as models get larger. We then use sparse autoencoders (SAEs) to inspect whether this information is also reflected in the models' internal features, and we do identify features connected to grounding dimensions such as "sensorimotor" and "social". These findings suggest that current LLMs can recover grounding dimensions when explicitly queried, but do not recruit them in a human-like way when words are generated freely.

In the animal kingdom, mirror self-recognition is a canonical probe of higher-order cognition, emerging only in some species. We ask whether an analogous functional capability emerges in embodied vision-language model (VLM) agents: can they recognize themselves in a mirror? We introduce a controlled 3D benchmark where a first-person VLM agent must infer a hidden body attribute from its reflection and select the matching target, while avoiding self-other misattribution. To separate mirror-grounded self-identification from shortcuts, we test mirror removal, misleading cues, and occluded reflections. We also evaluate the decision process through mirror seeking, temporal ordering, self-attribution, and reasoning-action consistency. Our experiments show that mirror-based self-identification emerges mainly in stronger VLMs. These models can use reflected evidence for action, whereas weaker models often inspect the mirror but fail to extract self-relevant information or misattribute their reflection. Language-vision conflict further shows that self-referential language alone is not evidence of grounded self-identification. Overall, mirror-based evaluation provides a diagnostic for whether embodied self-grounding is causally rooted in perception and action rather than priors, prompt compliance, or confabulation.

Are certain cognitive biases mathematically inevitable consequences of sequential information processing? We prove that primacy effects, anchoring, and order-dependence are architecturally necessary in autoregressive language models due to causal masking constraints. Our three impossibility theorems establish: (1) primacy bias arises from asymmetric attention accumulation; (2) anchoring emerges from sequential conditioning with provable information bounds; and (3) exact debiasing by permutation marginalization requires factorial-time computation, with Monte Carlo approximation feasible at constant per-tolerance overhead. We validate these bounds across 12 frontier LLMs ($R^2 = 0.89$; $Δ$BIC $= 16.6$ vs. next-best alternative). We then derive quantitative predictions from the framework and test them in two pre-registered human experiments ($N = 464$ analyzed). Study 1 confirms anchor position modulates anchoring magnitude ($d = 0.52$, BF$_{10} = 847$). Study 2 shows working memory load amplifies primacy bias ($d = 0.41$, BF$_{10} = 156$), with WM capacity predicting bias reduction ($r = -.38$). These convergent findings reframe cognitive biases as resource-rational responses to sequential processing.

Context window expansion is often treated as a straightforward capability upgrade for LLMs, but we find it systematically fails in multi-agent social dilemmas. Across 7 LLMs and 4 games over 500 rounds, expanding accessible history degrades cooperation in 18 of 28 model--game settings, a pattern we term the memory curse. We isolate the underlying mechanism through three analyses. First, lexical analysis of 378,000 reasoning traces associates this breakdown with eroding forward-looking intent rather than rising paranoia. We validate this using targeted fine-tuning as a cognitive probe: a LoRA adapter trained exclusively on forward-looking traces mitigates the decay and transfers zero-shot to distinct games. Second, memory sanitization holds prompt length fixed while replacing visible history with synthetic cooperative records, which restores cooperation substantially, proving the trigger is memory content, not length alone. Finally, ablating explicit Chain-of-Thought reasoning often reduces the collapse, showing that deliberation paradoxically amplifies the memory curse. Together, these results recast memory as an active determinant of multi-agent behavior: longer recall can either destabilize or support cooperation depending on the reasoning patterns it elicits.

Early 2025 we ran a series of vibe coding challenges across four different student cohorts. The cohorts included 54 ICT students, 24 digital marketing students, and 7 journalism students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and 22 BA Communication students at North-West University (South Africa). From the student reflections, five major patterns emerged. Students reported that AI tools shifted their focus from syntax to higher-order thinking; they also described a skill shift from memorizing to evaluating; they viewed AI proficiency as career-essential; they framed their relationship with AI as partnership rather than replacement; and finally non-technical students showed the strongest appreciation for the accessibility these tools provide. This practitioner report documents what we observed during the classroom experiments, we reflect on how the landscape has shifted in the year since, and shares practical lessons for educators considering similar experiments. We present the observations as what they are: patterns from practice, not proven conclusions, in the beleif that sharing early stage experiences contributes to the overall field of AI and education.

Generative models have achieved success in producing apparently coherent 2D videos, but remain challenging in the physical world due to lack of 4D spatiotemporal scale. Typically, existing 4D generative models directly embed macro scale constraints to enhance overall spatiotemporal consistency. However, these methods only ensure global appearance coherence and fail to reveal the local dynamics of the physical world. Our insight is that global appearance structure and local dynamic topology empower 4D spatiotemporal cognition, thereby enabling 4D generation with spatiotemporal regularities. In this work, we propose ST-Gen4D, a 4D generation framework with 4D spatiotemporal cognition-based world model. Our model is guided by four key designs: 1) Spatiotemporal representation. We encode various modalities into multiple representations as a feature basis. 2) Spatiotemporal cognition. We sculpture these representations into global appearance graph and local dynamic graph, and fuse them via semantic-bridged spatiotemporal fusion to obtain a 4D cognition graph. 3) Spatiotemporal reasoning. We utilize a world model to derive future state based on the 4D cognition. 4) Spatiotemporal generation. We leverage the derived cognition as condition to guide latent diffusion for 4D Gaussian generation. By deeply integrating 4D intrinsic cognition with generative priors, our model guarantees the structural rationality and topological consistency of 4D generation. Moreover, we propose ST-4D datasets by aggregating public 4D datasets and self-built subset. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of our ST-Gen4D across 3D and 4D generation tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for tutoring, feedback generation, and content creation, but their broad pretraining makes them hard to constrain and poor substitutes for controllable learners. Educational systems often require inspectable and editable knowledge states: educators want to know what a system assumes the learner knows, and learners benefit when the system can justify actions in terms of explicit skills, misconceptions, and strategies. Inspired by cognitive architectures, we propose Cognitive Agent Compilation (CAC), a framework that uses a strong teacher LLM to compile problem-solving knowledge into an explicit target agent. CAC separates (i) knowledge representation, (ii) problem-solving policy, and (iii) verification and update rules, with the goal of making bounded problem solving more inspectable and editable in educational settings. We present an early proof of concept implemented with Small Language Models that surfaces key design trade-offs, particularly between explicit control and scalable generalization, and positions CAC as an initial step toward bounded-knowledge AI for educational applications.

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence necessitates robust methods for evaluating the cognitive capabilities of models beyond narrow task performance. Here, we introduce a psychometric framework to assess the cognitive profiles of generative AI, comparing them to human norms and tracking their evolution across generations. Initial evaluation of leading multimodal models using tasks adapted from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale revealed a profoundly uneven cognitive architecture: near-ceiling performance in verbal comprehension and working memory (>$98^{\text{th}}$ percentile) contrasted with near-floor performance in perceptual reasoning (<$1^{\text{st}}$ percentile). To track developmental trajectories beyond human-normed limits, we developed the Artificial Intelligence Quotient (AIQ) Benchmark and applied it to six generations and two model families, revealing significant but asymmetric performance gains. Notably, we uncovered a sharp dissociation between modalities; abstract quantitative reasoning matured far more rapidly when presented linguistically compared to a visually analogous format, indicating an architectural bias towards language-based symbolic manipulation. While abstract visual reasoning improved, visual-perceptual organization remained largely stagnant. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that the cognitive abilities of generative models are evolving unevenly, suggesting that scaling and optimization approaches to AGI development alone may be insufficient to overcome fundamental architectural limitations in achieving balanced, human-like general intelligence.

Reliable human-machine discrimination is becoming increasingly important as large language models and autonomous agents are deployed in online settings. Existing approaches evaluate whether a system can produce behavior or responses indistinguishable from those of a human, following the emphasis on outputs as a criterion for intelligence proposed by Alan Turing. Cognitive science offers an alternative perspective: evaluating the process by which behavior is produced. To test whether cognitive processes can reliably distinguish humans from machines, we introduce CogCAPTCHA30, a battery of 30 cognitive tasks designed to elicit diagnostic process-level features even when task performance is matched. Across the battery, process-level features provide stronger discriminative signal than performance metrics alone, reliably distinguishing humans from agents even under output matching (mean process-feature classifier AUC = 0.88). To evaluate agentic process differences, we compare off-the-shelf frontier agents (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro), Centaur (a language model fine-tuned on 10.7M human decisions), and two task-specific fine-tuning approaches applied to Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct: action-level supervised fine-tuning (A-SFT) and process-level fine-tuning (P-SFT), which directly optimizes process features. Broad fine-tuning on human decisions improves human-like task processes relative to off-the-shelf agents, while task-specific process-level supervision further improves behavioral mimicry. However, this advantage diminishes under cross-task transfer when supervised process targets do not naturally generalize across tasks. Explicit process-level supervision can improve human behavioral mimicry, but only if appropriate task-specific process representations are available, highlighting process specification as a bottleneck for achieving human-like cognitive processes in machines.

A growing body of work in cognitive science suggests that reportable conscious access is associated with \emph{global ignition} over distributed memory systems, while such activation is only partially accessible as individuals cannot directly access or enumerate all activated contents. This tension suggests a plausible mechanism that cognition may rely on a compact representation that approximates the global influence of activation on downstream processing. Inspired by this idea, we introduce the concept of \textbf{Mindscape Activation Signature (MiA-Signature)}, a compressed representation of the global activation pattern induced by a query. In LLM systems, this is instantiated via submodular-based selection of high-level concepts that cover the activated context space, optionally refined through lightweight iterative updates using working memory. The resulting MiA-Signature serves as a conditioning signal that approximates the effect of the full activation state while remaining computationally tractable. Integrating MiA-Signatures into both RAG and agentic systems yields consistent performance gains across multiple long-context understanding tasks.

Large language models (LLMs) are reshaping how knowledge is produced, with increasing reliance on AI systems for generation, summarization, and reasoning. While prior work has studied cognitive offloading in humans and model collapse in recursive training, these effects are typically considered in isolation. We propose a unified perspective: humans and language models form a coupled dynamical system linked by a feedback loop of usage, generation, and retraining. We introduce a minimal model with three variables -- human cognition, data quality, and model capability -- and show that this feedback can give rise to distinct dynamical regimes. Our analysis identifies three regimes: co-evolutionary enhancement, fragile equilibrium, and degenerative convergence. Through a simple simulation, we demonstrate that increasing reliance on AI can induce a transition toward a low-diversity, suboptimal equilibrium. From an information-theoretic perspective, this transition corresponds to an emergent information bottleneck in the human-AI loop, where entropy reduction reflects loss of diversity and support under closed-loop feedback rather than beneficial compression. These results suggest that the trajectory of AI systems is shaped not only by model design, but by the dynamics of human-AI co-evolution.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across diverse tasks, their inference dynamics remain poorly understood because of the limited resolution of existing analysis tools. In this work, we identify an intrinsic magnification mechanism in transformer architectures: deeper layers inherently magnify the small changes of layer-wise confidence, providing a fine-grained confidence trajectory. Building on this insight, we introduce HyperLens, a high-resolution probe designed to trace confidence trajectories and quantify the cognitive effort during inference. Across LLMs and datasets, HyperLens reveals a consistent divergence in confidence trajectories that separates complex from simple tasks. We abstract this pattern into a quantitative cognitive effort metric. Our analysis reveals a fundamental principle: complex tasks consistently require higher cognitive effort. Finally, we provide a mechanistic diagnosis of a common side effect of standard Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT): it can reduce cognitive effort and consequently degrade performance on in-domain tasks.

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, its frequent errors and hallucinations, often seen as limitations, offer a unique pedagogical opportunity. By framing AI as a ``learning companion'' whose imperfect outputs prompt analysis, evaluation, and reflection, we argue that instructors can engage students in the fundamental processes of higher-order thinking. This paper presents a design-oriented study in which an AI-integrated syllabus in a \textit{database design} course deliberately leverages AI's limitations to foster critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills aligned with Bloom's taxonomy of learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examine how structured interaction with AI-generated errors supports metacognitive engagement, reinforces disciplinary rigor, and relates to students' perceived AI literacy and subject-matter competency.

Computational cognitive models discovered using large language models have so far relied solely on behavioral data. However, it is well-known that models produced from the behavioral trajectory alone are typically under-determined. In this work, we explore the use of Think Aloud traces as an additional form of data constraint during automated model discovery. When applied to the domain of risky decision-making, we find that the models discovered with think-aloud achieve significantly improved predictive performance on held-out data. Additionally, we find that the discovered models belong to different structural classes than those discovered from behavior alone for the majority of participants (69.4%), specifically, it shifts from Explicit comparator towards Integrated utility. These results suggest that process-level language data not only improve model fit, but also systematically reshape the structure of the discovered cognitive models, enabling the identification of mechanisms that are not recoverable from behavior alone.

This paper presents the development and validation of an eye-tracking dataset designed to investigate how second-language (L2) learners process idiomatic expressions. While native speakers often rely on direct retrieval of figurative meanings, L2 speakers frequently adopt a literal-first approach, which incurs measurable cognitive costs. This resource captures these costs through ocular metrics recorded from Portuguese L1 speakers of English across all CEFR proficiency levels (A1-C2). Although the study uses entry-level 60 Hz hardware (Tobii Pro Spark), we demonstrate that this sampling rate provides sufficient data density to detect macro-cognitive events such as fixations and regressions in reading. Preliminary analysis validates the dataset by revealing a strong inverse correlation between language proficiency and regressive eye movements. Integrated into the MIA (Modeling Idiomaticity in Human and Artificial Language Processing) initiative, this dataset serves as a cognitively grounded benchmark for evaluating both human processing models and the alignment of large language models with human-like figurative understanding.

While LLMs show promise in automating educational content creation, their ability to generate questions that stimulate higher-order thinking remains understudied. This work evaluates six widely-used LLMs through a Bloom's Taxonomy lens, focusing on their capacity to transcend rote memorization and achieve cognitive leaps. Using a hybrid human--AI evaluation protocol, we generate and analyze 20{,}700 questions across computer science, K--12 math, and social-science domains. Key contributions include: (1) a fine-grained prompting strategy that reduces question repetitiveness by 24.45% for Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, and increases the proportion of higher-order cognitive level outputs by 11.53% for InternLM3-8B-Instruct; (2) quantitative metrics for cognitive shift intensity (CogShift) and category drift, revealing InternLM3's superior performance in multi-level transitions; (3) an interpretability analysis revealing metric-level correlations that enhance the transparency of Chain-of-Thought prompting. Our findings highlight the importance of cognitive-aware prompt design and provide benchmarks for deploying LLMs in personalized learning systems.

Cognitive neuroscience is fragmented into specialized models, each tailored to specific experimental paradigms, hence preventing a unified model of cognition in the human brain. Here, we introduce TRIBE v2, a tri-modal (video, audio and language) foundation model capable of predicting human brain activity in a variety of naturalistic and experimental conditions. Leveraging a unified dataset of over 1,000 hours of fMRI across 720 subjects, we demonstrate that our model accurately predicts high-resolution brain responses for novel stimuli, tasks and subjects, superseding traditional linear encoding models, delivering several-fold improvements in accuracy. Critically, TRIBE v2 enables in silico experimentation: tested on seminal visual and neuro-linguistic paradigms, it recovers a variety of results established by decades of empirical research. Finally, by extracting interpretable latent features, TRIBE v2 reveals the fine-grained topography of multisensory integration. These results establish artificial intelligence as a unifying framework for exploring the functional organization of the human brain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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