Cognitive Science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While textual frequency has been validated as relevant to human cognition in reading speed, its relatedness to Large Language Models (LLMs) is seldom studied. We propose a novel research direction in terms of textual data frequency, which is an understudied topic, to the best of our knowledge. Our framework is composed of three units. First, this paper proposes Textual Frequency Law (TFL), which indicates that frequent textual data should be preferred for LLMs for both prompting and fine-tuning. Since many LLMs are closed-source in their training data, we propose using online resources to estimate the sentence-level frequency. We then utilize an input paraphraser to paraphrase the input into a more frequent textual expression. Next, we propose Textual Frequency Distillation (TFD) by querying LLMs to conduct story completion by further extending the sentences in the datasets, and the resulting corpora are used to adjust the initial estimation. Finally, we propose Curriculum Textual Frequency Training (CTFT) that fine-tunes LLMs in an increasing order of sentence-level frequency. Experiments are conducted on our curated dataset Textual Frequency Paired Dataset (TFPD) on math reasoning, machine translation, commonsense reasoning and agentic tool calling. Results show the effectiveness of our framework.

In psychological support and emotional companionship scenarios, the core limitation of large language models (LLMs) lies not merely in response quality, but in their reliance on local next-token prediction, which prevents them from maintaining the temporal continuity, stage awareness, and user consent boundaries required for multi-turn intervention. This stateless characteristic makes systems prone to premature advancement, stage misalignment, and boundary violations in continuous dialogue. To address this problem, we argue that the key challenge in process-oriented emotional support is not simply generating natural language, but constructing a sustainably updatable external situational structure for the model. We therefore propose LEKIA 2.0, a situated LLM architecture that separates the cognitive layer from the executive layer, thereby decoupling situational modeling from intervention execution. This design enables the system to maintain stable representations of the user's situation and consent boundaries throughout ongoing interaction. To evaluate this process-control capability, we further introduce a Static-to-Dynamic online evaluation protocol for multi-turn interaction. LEKIA achieved an average absolute improvement of approximately 31% over prompt-only baselines in deep intervention loop completion. The results suggest that an external situational structure is a key enabling condition for building stable, controllable, and situated emotional support systems.

In-context learning (ICL) enables fast task adaptation from demonstrations without per-task parameter updates but remains highly sensitive to example selection and formatting. In unified multimodal models spanning understanding and generation, this sensitivity is exacerbated by cross-modal interference and varying cognitive demands. Consequently, in-context learning efficacy is often non-monotonic and highly task-dependent. To diagnose these behaviors, we introduce a six-level Capability-Oriented Taxonomy that categorizes the functional role of demonstrations from basic perception to high-order discernment. Guided by this cognitive framework, we construct UniICL-760K, a large-scale corpus featuring curated 8-shot in-context learning episodes across 15 subtasks, alongside UniICL-Bench for rigorous, controlled evaluation. We show that this data-driven assembly is the primary source of our gains. As a complementary, lightweight stabilizer, we additionally propose the Context-Adaptive Prototype Modulator, a plug-and-play module that further improves few-shot stability. Evaluations on UniICL-Bench show that our approach yields highly competitive unified results, outperforming larger-parameter multimodal large language model baselines on most understanding in-context learning tasks. Data and code are available at https://github.com/xuyicheng-zju/UniICL.

Creative ideas often arise by associating remote concepts. Can random associations reliably increase originality, and do they help humans and large language models (LLMs) in the same way? We asked human participants and seven LLMs to design products by drawing inspiration from a random source or addressing an unmet user need. Humans reliably benefited from cross-domain mappings, while LLMs generated more original ideas than humans but showed no overall benefit from the intervention, though this changed with semantic distance. More distant source-target pairings produced more original ideas in both humans and LLMs. Humans benefited at nearly any distance, while only the highest-rated LLMs benefited when the source was sufficiently remote. Humans and LLMs also used sources differently: humans tended to transfer surface features, while LLMs transferred structural and functional properties. These findings reveal the generative role of remote associations and systematic differences in how humans and AI respond to the same creativity intervention.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly embedded in human decision-making, yet distinguishing systems that genuinely amplify human cognition from those promoting excessive dependence remains underdefined. This paper introduces a framework to distinguish cognitive amplification (improving hybrid performance without degrading human capability) from cognitive delegation (outsourcing reasoning to the AI). We define four metrics: the Cognitive Amplification Index (CAI*), Dependency Ratio (D), Human Reliance Index (HRI), and Human Cognitive Drift Rate (HCDR). We test this framework in an agent-based NetLogo simulation across three reliance regimes and multiple dependency-atrophy configurations, performing constrained optimizations and parameter sweeps to determine if positive collaborative gain is recoverable. Finally, we introduce an extension with an explicit human-AI interaction term. Our metrics effectively distinguish degenerate AI-dominated delegation, capability-preserving but weakly competitive interaction, and structurally dependent boundary regimes. Across all baseline configurations, no regime achieves positive collaborative gain relative to the best standalone baseline, even when reducing capability atrophy to zero. This limitation proves structural rather than merely parametric. Positive collaborative gain (CAI* > 0) becomes attainable only after introducing an explicit interaction term allowing retained human capability to contribute directly to the assisted output. This framework provides a basis for evaluating whether human-AI systems remain cognitively sustainable. The results suggest that preventing capability erosion alone is insufficient for genuine amplification if the architecture remains delegation-oriented. Amplification requires both preserved human capability and a coupling mechanism through which it contributes productively to the hybrid outcome.

In cognitive science and linguistic theory, dialogue is not seen as a chain of independent utterances but rather as a joint activity sustained by coherence, consistency, and shared understanding. However, many systems for open-domain and personalized dialogue use surface-level similarity metrics (e.g., BLEU, ROUGE, F1) as one of their main reporting measures, which fail to capture these deeper aspects of conversational quality. We re-examine a notable retrieval-augmented framework for personalized dialogue, LAPDOG, as a case study for evaluation methodology. Using both human and LLM-based judges, we identify limitations in current evaluation practices, including corrupted dialogue histories, contradictions between retrieved stories and persona, and incoherent response generation. Our results show that human and LLM judgments align closely but diverge from lexical similarity metrics, underscoring the need for cognitively grounded evaluation methods. Broadly, this work charts a path toward more reliable assessment frameworks for retrieval-augmented dialogue systems that better reflect the principles of natural human communication.

Large language models (LLMs) display a unified "general factor" of capability across 10 benchmarks (a finding confirmed by our factor analysis of 156 models), yet they still struggle with simple, trivial tasks for humans. This is because current benchmarks focus on task completion, failing to probe the foundational cognitive abilities that highlight these behaviors. We address this by introducing the NeuroCognition benchmark, grounded in three adapted neuropsychological tests targeting distinct foundational cognitive components: Raven's Progressive Matrices (abstract relational reasoning), Spatial Working Memory (goal-directed spatial updating), and the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (cognitive flexibility). Our evaluation reveals that while models perform strongly on text, their performance degrades for images and with increased complexity. Comparison with a human baseline shows that LLMs and humans fail at different parts of the same tasks. Furthermore, we observe that complex reasoning is not universally beneficial, whereas simple, human-like strategies yield partial gains. We also find that NeuroCognition correlates positively with standard general-capability benchmarks, while still measuring distinct cognitive abilities beyond them. Overall, NeuroCognition emphasizes where current LLMs align with human-like intelligence and where they lack core adaptive cognition, showing the potential to serve as a verifiable, scalable source for improving LLMs.

College students increasingly use AI chatbots to support academic reading, yet we lack granular understanding of how these interactions shape their reading experience and cognitive engagement. We conducted an eight-week longitudinal study with 15 undergraduates who used AI to support assigned readings in a course. We collected 838 prompts across 239 reading sessions and developed a coding schema categorizing prompts into four cognitive themes: Decoding, Comprehension, Reasoning, and Metacognition. Comprehension prompts dominated (59.6%), with Reasoning (29.8%), Metacognition (8.5%), and Decoding (2.1%) less frequent. Most sessions (72%) contained exactly three prompts, the required minimum of the reading assignment. Within sessions, students showed natural cognitive progression from comprehension toward reasoning, but this progression was truncated. Across eight weeks, students' engagement patterns remained stable, with substantial individual differences persisting throughout. Qualitative analysis revealed an intention-behavior gap: students recognized that effective prompting required effort but rarely applied this knowledge, with efficiency emerging as the primary driver. Students also strategically triaged their engagement based on interest and academic pressures, exhibiting a novel pattern of reading through AI rather than with it: using AI-generated summaries as primary material to filter which sections merited deeper attention. We discuss design implications for AI reading systems that scaffold sustained cognitive engagement.

Visual perspective taking--inferring how the world appears from another's viewpoint--is foundational to social cognition. We introduce FlipSet, a diagnostic benchmark for Level-2 visual perspective taking (L2 VPT) in vision-language models. The task requires simulating 180-degree rotations of 2D character strings from another agent's perspective, isolating spatial transformation from 3D scene complexity. Evaluating 103 VLMs reveals systematic egocentric bias: the vast majority perform below chance, with roughly three-quarters of errors reproducing the camera viewpoint. Control experiments expose a compositional deficit--models achieve high theory-of-mind accuracy and above-chance mental rotation in isolation, yet fail catastrophically when integration is required. This dissociation indicates that current VLMs lack the mechanisms needed to bind social awareness to spatial operations, suggesting fundamental limitations in model-based spatial reasoning. FlipSet provides a cognitively grounded testbed for diagnosing perspective-taking capabilities in multimodal systems.

Despite recent successes, test-time scaling -- i.e., dynamically expanding the token budget during inference as needed -- remains brittle for vision-language models (VLMs). Unstructured visual reasoning chains entangle perception and reasoning, leading to long, disorganized contexts where small perceptual mistakes may cascade into completely wrong answers. Reasoning also requires expensive reinforcement learning with hand-crafted rewards. Here, we introduce SPARC (Separating Perception And Reasoning Circuits), a modular framework that explicitly decouples visual perception from reasoning. Inspired by sequential sensory-to-cognitive processing in the brain, SPARC implements a two-stage pipeline where the model first performs explicit visual search to localize question-relevant regions, then conditions its reasoning on those regions to produce the final answer. This separation enables independent test-time scaling with asymmetric compute allocation (e.g., prioritizing perceptual processing under distribution shift), and supports selective optimization (e.g., improving the perceptual stage alone when it is the bottleneck for end-to-end performance). It also accommodates compressed contexts by running global search at lower image resolutions and allocating high-resolution processing only to selected regions, thereby reducing visual token count and compute. SPARC outperforms monolithic baselines and strong visual-grounding approaches across challenging visual reasoning tasks, such as improving Qwen3VL 4B on the $V^*$ VQA benchmark by 6.7 points and surpassing "thinking with images" by 4.6 points in an OOD setting with a $200\times$ lower token budget.

Online financial services constitute an essential component of contemporary web ecosystems, yet their openness introduces substantial exposure to fraud that harms vulnerable users and weakens trust in digital finance. Such threats have become a significant web harm that erodes societal fairness and affects the well-being of online communities. However, existing detection methods based on graph neural networks (GNNs) struggle with two persistent challenges: (1) long-tailed data distributions, which obscure rare but critical fraudulent cases, and (2) fraud camouflage, where malicious transactions mimic benign behaviors to evade detection. To fill these gaps, we propose HIMVH, a Hippocampus-Inspired Multi-View Hypergraph learning model for web finance fraud detection. Specifically, drawing inspiration from the scene conflict monitoring role of the hippocampus, we design a cross-view inconsistency perception module that captures subtle discrepancies and behavioral heterogeneity across multiple transaction views. This module enables the model to identify subtle cross-view conflicts for detecting online camouflaged fraudulent behaviors. Furthermore, inspired by the match-mismatch novelty detection mechanism of the CA1 region, we introduce a novelty-aware hypergraph learning module that measures feature deviations from neighborhood expectations and adaptively reweights messages, thereby enhancing sensitivity to online rare fraud patterns in the long-tailed settings. Extensive experiments on six web-based financial fraud datasets demonstrate that HIMVH achieves 6.42% improvement in AUC, 9.74% in F1 and 39.14% in AP on average over 15 SOTA models.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel at single-image understanding, they exhibit significantly degraded performance in multi-image reasoning scenarios. Multi-image reasoning presents fundamental challenges including complex inter-relationships between images and scattered critical information across image sets. Inspired by human cognitive processes, we propose a Cognition-Inspired Meta-Action Framework (CINEMA), which decomposes multi-image reasoning into five structured meta-actions: Global, Focus, Hint, Think, and Answer, explicitly modeling the sequential cognitive steps humans naturally employ. For cold-start training, we introduce a Retrieval-Based Tree Sampling strategy that generates high-quality meta-action trajectories to bootstrap the model with reasoning patterns. During reinforcement learning, we adopt a two-stage paradigm: an exploration phase with Diversity-Preserving Strategy to avoid entropy collapse, followed by an annealed exploitation phase with DAPO to gradually strengthen exploitation. To train our model, we construct a dataset of 56k cold-start and 58k reinforcement learning instances spanning multi-image, multi-frame, and single-image tasks. We conduct extensive evaluations on multi-image reasoning benchmarks, video understanding benchmarks, and single-image benchmarks, achieving competitive state-of-the-art performance on several key benchmarks. Our model surpasses GPT-4o on the MUIR and MVMath benchmarks and notably outperforms specialized video reasoning models on video understanding benchmarks, demonstrating the effectiveness and generalizability of our human cognition-inspired reasoning framework.

Games have long been a microcosm for studying planning and reasoning in both natural and artificial intelligence (AI), often focusing on expert-level or even super-human play. But real life also pushes human intelligence along a different frontier, requiring people to flexibly navigate decision-making problems that they have never thought about before. Here, we use novice gameplay to study how people reason about new problem settings. Through a series of large-scale behavioral studies with over 1000 participants and 121 two-player strategic board games (almost all novel to our participants), we show that people are systematic and adaptively rational in how they play a game for the first time, or evaluate a game (e.g., how fair or how fun it is likely to be) before they have played it even once. We explain these capacities via a computational cognitive model that we call the 'Intuitive Gamer', a model based on mechanisms of fast and flat (depth-limited) goal-directed probabilistic simulation. Our work offers new insights into how people rapidly evaluate, act, and make suggestions when encountering novel problems, and could inform the design of more flexible and human-like AI systems that can determine not just how to solve new tasks, but whether a task is worth thinking about at all.

Humans can uniquely assign value to novel, abstract outcomes to support reinforcement learning. However, this flexibility is cognitively costly and reduces learning efficiency. We propose that goal-dependent learning initially relies on capacity-limited working memory. With consistent experience, learners create a "compressed" reward function - a simplified goal rule -- that transfers to long-term memory for a more automatic evaluation upon receiving feedback. This automaticity frees working memory resources, thereby boosting learning efficiency. Across six experiments, we demonstrate that learning is impaired by the size of the goal space but improves when this space allows for compression. Additionally, faster reward processing correlates with better learning. Although the algorithmic details remain to be established, our behavioral results and computational models suggest that efficient goal-directed learning relies on compressing complex goal information into a stable reward function. These findings illuminate the cognitive mechanisms of intrinsic motivation and can inform behavioral interventions supporting human goal achievement.

Human cognition is profoundly shaped by the environments in which it unfolds. Yet, it remains an open question whether learning and decision making can be explained as a principled adaptation to the statistical structure of real-world tasks. We introduce ecologically rational analysis, a computational framework that unifies the normative foundations of rational analysis with ecological grounding. Leveraging large language models to generate ecologically valid cognitive tasks at scale, and using meta-learning to derive rational models optimized for these environments, we develop a new class of learning algorithms: Ecologically Rational Meta-learned Inference (ERMI). ERMI internalizes the statistical regularities of naturalistic problem spaces and adapts flexibly to novel situations, without requiring hand-crafted heuristics or explicit parameter updates. We show that ERMI captures human behavior across 15 experiments spanning function learning, category learning, and decision making, outperforming several established cognitive models in trial-by-trial prediction. Our results suggest that much of human cognition may reflect adaptive alignment to the ecological structure of the problems we encounter in everyday life.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress in reasoning across diverse domains. However, effective reasoning in real-world tasks requires adapting the reasoning strategy to the demands of the problem, ranging from fast, intuitive responses to deliberate, step-by-step reasoning and tool-augmented thinking. Drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, we propose a novel taxonomy of LLM reasoning strategies along two knowledge boundaries: a fast/slow boundary separating intuitive from deliberative processes, and an internal/external boundary distinguishing reasoning grounded in the model's parameters from reasoning augmented by external tools. We systematically survey recent work on adaptive reasoning in LLMs and categorize methods based on key decision factors. We conclude by highlighting open challenges and future directions toward more adaptive, efficient, and reliable LLMs.

Autonomy, from the Greek autos (self) and nomos (law), refers to the capacity to operate according to internal rules without external control. Autonomous vehicles (AuVs) are therefore understood as vehicular systems that perceive their environment and execute tasks with minimal human intervention, consistent with the direction indicated by the SAE levels of automated driving. However, recent research and deployments increasingly showcase vehicular capabilities that, while not contradicting autonomy, are not entailed by it, including ambiguous goal handling, purposeful social engagement, external tool use, proactive problem solving, continuous learning, and context-sensitive reasoning in unseen and ethically salient situations, enabled in part by multimodal language models. These developments reveal a gap between technical autonomy and the broader social cognitive functions required for human-centered mobility, which are more precisely captured by the notion of agency. Therefore, rather than adding increasingly elaborate modifiers to "autonomous," we introduce agentic vehicles (AgVs) and suggest that autonomy and agency are intertwined but conceptually distinct: if autonomy concerns what to do and how to do it (task executions under internal rules), agency pertains to why to do it and what else can be done (goal-directed, adaptive actions). We present autonomy and agency as orthogonal yet synergistic dimensions with co-development implications. Vehicle agency marks a novel dimension of mobility service intelligence, heralding vehicles as purposeful actors in society.

Reasoning is a hallmark of human intelligence, enabling adaptive decision-making in complex unfamiliar scenarios. In contrast, machine intelligence remains bound to training data, unable to dynamically refine solutions at inference. While recent advances have explored machine reasoning - trading inference-time compute for improved performance - they focus on verbal domains such as mathematical problem-solving where explicit rules govern step-by-step solution generation. Many tasks lack sufficient labelled data and require alternative performance improvement mechanisms, such as inference-time compute. Here we present a paradigm for machine reasoning in vision, enabling performance improvements with increasing thinking time (inference-time compute), even with limited labelled data. Our approach is inspired by dual-process theories of human cognition, integrating a fast-thinking System I module for generating and verifying solutions in familiar tasks, with a slow-thinking System II module that iteratively refines predictions using self-play reinforcement learning, even when task-specific data is limited. This paradigm involves proposing, competing over, and refining solutions until convergence. We demonstrate that extended inference-time compute yields superior performance compared to large-scale supervised learning, foundation models, and human experts in vision tasks. These include computer-vision benchmarks and cancer localisation across five organs, highlighting the potential of inference-time compute for data-scarce problems.

This paper develops a formal account of causal explanation, grounded in a theory of conversational pragmatics, and inspired by the interventionist idea that explanation is about asking and answering what-if-things-had-been-different questions. We illustrate the fruitfulness of the account, relative to previous accounts, by showing that widely recognised explanatory virtues emerge naturally, as do subtle empirical patterns concerning the impact of norms on causal judgments. This shows the value of a communication-first approach to explanation: getting clear on explanation's communicative dimension is an important prerequisite for philosophical work on explanation. The result is a simple but powerful framework for incorporating insights from the cognitive sciences into philosophical work on explanation, which will be useful for philosophers or cognitive scientists interested in explanation.

In this study, we investigate developmental mechanisms that enable small, resource-constrained systems such as cm-sized millirobots to autonomously explore, learn, and adapt their capabilities throughout their lifespan. Reinforcement learning algorithms guide the agent's skill acquisition and adaptation through the interplay of our proposed tiny Developmental Skill Method (tinyDSM), which integrates intrinsic motivation and fitness-based assessment. We strive for minimal hard-wired skills while encouraging the open-ended development of new skills. A key emphasis in our approach is to encode minimal a-priori general knowledge, which serves as a foundational starting point for the system as it further learns system-specific dependencies from the initial knowledge provided. Thus, by design, our approach aims to cover generic application domains. The methodology is based on (a) developmental mechanism with intrinsic motivation, and (b) a cognitive architecture (knowledge, reasoning, learning), while (c) utilizing minimal resources. It uses a hierarchical knowledge graph and kinematic reasoners to model and evaluate simple and advanced motion related skills. In our experiments, we use a resource-constrained millirobot with a volume of 36 cm^3 with a Raspberry Pi Pico 32-bit microcontroller that integrates all described features and capabilities except the camera system in 9 kB. Starting with learning the most elementary motor skills the millirobot autonomously progresses from simple linear and angular movements to complex geometric patterns within 15 minutes. To complement the physical experiments, we perform a simulation-based analysis that enables systematic comparisons across learning algorithms and intrinsic motivation parameters.

The basic problem of semantic compression is to minimize the length of a message while preserving its meaning. This differs from classical notions of compression in that the distortion is not measured directly at the level of bits, but rather in an abstract semantic space. In order to make this precise, we take inspiration from cognitive neuroscience and machine learning and model semantic space as a continuous Euclidean vector space. In such a space, stimuli like speech, images, or even ideas, are mapped to high-dimensional real vectors, and the location of these embeddings determines their meaning relative to other embeddings. This suggests that a natural metric for semantic similarity is just the Euclidean distance, which is what we use in this work. We map the optimization problem of determining the minimal-length, meaning-preserving message to a spin glass Hamiltonian and solve the resulting statistical mechanics problem using replica theory. We map out the replica symmetric phase diagram, identifying distinct phases of semantic compression: a first-order transition occurs between phases marked by the emergence of paraphrases, whereas a continuous crossover is seen from extractive to abstractive compression. We speculate on which features of the phase diagram are captured by replica symmetry, and which features change under replica symmetry breaking. We conclude by showing numerical simulations of compressions obtained by simulated annealing and greedy algorithms, and argue that while the problem of finding a meaning-preserving compression is computationally hard in the worst case, there exist efficient algorithms which achieve near optimal performance in the typical case.

Visual persuasion uses images to shape cognition, emotion, and behavior, with its effects depending on both visual attributes and semantic context. Despite recent progress, it remains unclear whether Vision-Language Models (VLMs) understand visual persuasiveness. This motivates us to ask: can VLMs assess whether an image persuasively supports an intended message, which visual factors shape this judgment, and do they align with human judgments? Through empirical analyses on image-message pairs where human raters consistently agree on the persuasiveness judgment, we show that VLMs exhibit a recall-oriented bias: they over-predict images as persuasive while achieving high recall. We introduce Visual Persuasive Factors (VPFs), a taxonomy informed by cognitive psychology for quantifying visual cues that shape persuasive judgments. Our factor-level analysis reveals that VPFs distinguish human persuasiveness judgments, whereas VLMs only partially reproduce these patterns, often generating false positives by treating persuasion-relevant cues as sufficient evidence. Building on this insight, we evaluate VPF-guided interventions and find that properly framed VPF knowledge can improve performance, but merely specifying visual cues or adding step-by-step reasoning is insufficient. By analyzing model rationales at the level of functional reasoning steps, we further identify a central bottleneck in connecting object identification to semantic message alignment.