Intuition

Anticipating whether a person will interact from one's own perspective is a highly intuitive task for humans, that relies on a combination of cues. We investigate how humans perform at predicting a person's intention to interact from a service robot's point of view, using pose-only or full video input, then benchmark different lightweight pose-based models and state-of-the-art vision-language models. We conducted our benchmark on the HUI360 dataset on a fixed pilot subset of 100 test tracks (25 positive, 75 negative). We found that with pose-only input, human annotators outperform lightweight trained pose models but not by large margins (+0.08 in F1-Score). But when given full egocentric video with a target bounding box, human annotators perform substantially better and largely outperform the Vision-Language Models (+0.2 in F1-Score). We also compared VLMs of different size and under different input conditions, and found that the best results do not correlate with model size. Our result confirms that predicting interactions is a challenging task for social robots and that reasoning-capable models are necessary but their actual reasoning capabilities alone do not suffice to match the social intuition of humans.

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

Topos causal models recast causal inference inside a topos: a causal world is a presheaf, an intervention is a sub-model named by a characteristic map into the subobject classifier $\Om$, and reasoning is Kripke-Joyal forcing in an intuitionistic internal language. We give the first axiom-free machine-checked account of this 1-topos core, in Cubical Agda over a previously verified probability monad and do-calculus; the framework is otherwise developed on paper, with central claims stated rather than proved. Three of our results go beyond faithful transcription. We exhibit a contextuality obstruction the programme does not treat: pairwise-consistent local causal data with no global model, detected by a degree-one holonomy class. We delimit the claim that interventions are modelled by the subobject classifier: an intervention and an observation name the same subobject, so $\Om$ fixes the target of a do-operation but not the operation itself, which is surgery on the kernels --- where, on a confounder, the interventional and observational laws differ. And we settle the modal unit --- inflationarity is derivable from $j\top = \top$ and naturality, not a fourth axiom. We also machine-check the classifier of sieves with its classification theorem, the pullback collating local mechanisms, and the Kripke-Joyal forcing clauses. The development assumes no axioms and typechecks under Agda's \texttt{--safe} flag, with the ordered field discharged at $\mathbb{Q}$; type-level sheafification and a directed do-calculus are future work.

AI-enabled systems are seeing increasing deployment across numerous domains, with many being "black boxes" with respect to core functions and capabilities. I.e., many systems take inputs and give outputs, but without users having any ability to see how the former lead to the latter. AI-enabled systems are also being used to augment autonomy in systems, and autonomy coupled with opacity raises numerous concerns surrounding, e.g., the reliability of systems, their regularity in functioning, human ability to control them, or whether deploying opaque and potentially autonomous systems is in compliance with ethical and legal norms. In this article, we argue that many of these worries can be mitigated by leveraging practical judgment, virtue, and intuition in the deployment and use of opaque AI-enabled systems. We show that focusing on these distinctly human capabilities provides a means for bridging between the practical challenges created by opacity and the ethical, legal, and social norms underpinning particular domains. We argue that a core element in doing this is a recognition that many positive human traits are not quantifiable and we therefore must develop training regimen and guidelines on AI deployment anchored in humanistic but non-quantifiable values. Throughout the article, we focus on the military domain as an exemplar of the importance of practical judgment, virtue, and intuition as drivers for ethical and effective human decision-making surrounding AI deployments, but the underlying arguments apply to all domains where opaque and potentially autonomous systems are being deployed (subject to domain-specific alterations).

When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.

The alignment of language models is typically studied through the lens of capability benchmarks, but the dynamics of how models change during post-training remain poorly understood. We argue that the physical sciences, and thermodynamic phase-transition theory in particular, offer a principled and underexplored vocabulary for reasoning about these dynamics. As a case study, we instantiate this position through the lens of material Crystallization, which is a well-studied thermodynamic phase transition. For tasks like random number generation, this breaks into 3 phases: (1) the high entropy liquid phase in the pretrained model, with many distinct sampling distributions promptable from the model; (2) the nucleation phase caused by supervised finetuning, in which behavior collapses onto a single seed distribution present in the pretrained LLM; and (3) a settling phase in which reinforcement learning techniques redistribute probability of the collapsed distribution, but largely keep it concentrated on the same options as the seed distribution. We propose intuitive metrics to verify the transitions between these phases, and validate the idea across a range of random tasks. Crystallization is one instance of a broader class of physical frameworks we believe alignment research should import to answer questions about where alignment-induced structure comes from, why it converges where it does, and what it fundamentally cannot change.

The growing reliance on pre-trained Machine Learning (ML) models has introduced new attack surfaces. Recent vulnerabilities demonstrate that malicious behavior can be embedded within model artifacts, often bypassing existing defenses. Current model-scanning solutions primarily rely on static, format-specific rules or known attack signatures, which limit their ability to generalize across frameworks and to detect novel exploitation paths. In contrast, we propose a solution that focuses on the effects an attack has on the host system executing the model and builds on foundational intuitions about ML model execution. In particular, we observe that ML models operate within well-defined lifecycle phases and that, within each phase, interactions with the host system are highly structured and predictable. We translate these intuitions into Moat, a dynamic lifecycle-aware approach for securing ML model execution, and instantiate this design in Re-Moat, our reference implementation. We evaluate Re-Moat across multiple ML frameworks using 77,974 real-world model artifacts from the Hugging Face Hub, 31 Proofs-of-Concept (PoCs) from CVEs, and 334 models from a state-of-the-art dataset, and compare it against state-of-the-art model-scanning solutions. Our results show that our approach detects all evaluated attack classes while maintaining a close-to-zero false-positive rate, validating our intuitions and motivating dynamic analysis for securing ML model execution.

Using an open problem from the EC 2025 paper "Stable Menus of Public Goods" as a testbed, we conduct experiments to understand the effectiveness of different AI-for-EconCS research workflows. Specifically, we study three questions: Does providing human intuition in the prompt help? Does automated multi-turn interaction help? And, does an LLM outperform a first-year PhD student? Regarding the first two questions, we provide evidence for the following workflow suggestions: (1) prompting with human intuition can encourage the LLM to have better "taste", (2) multi-turn workflows help when the pipeline encourages "ambitious" steps. Regarding the third question, using an unpublished manuscript written by the paper's senior authors prior to collaborating with the first-year PhD student, we compare the effectiveness of the LLM with that of the first-year PhD student, and find that the LLM is slightly less effective.

AI-assisted mathematics is often evaluated on solving predefined problems. In practice, however, many important advances begin earlier, when a vague research intuition is transformed into a concrete problem, a promising route, and a theorem family worth proving. This report studies that stage through a case study that led to sign-embedding quantum algorithms for matrix equations and matrix functions, foundational primitives in quantum linear algebra and operator-output quantum algorithms. The project began with a human-originated intuition that rational approximation is especially effective for jump-type functions such as the sign function, and might therefore serve as a design principle for quantum algorithms. Rather than merely assisting after the problem was fixed, AI-assisted exploration, including workflows later integrated into the agentic AI-mathematician system AIM, played a key role in expanding this intuition into a route map, comparing candidate formulations, and converging toward sign embedding as the central framework. AIM then helped connect a known matrix-sign identity to wider classes of matrix equations and matrix functions, and drafted proof and complexity calculations. The decisive scientific judgments remained human: selecting which human-AI-expanded routes were worth pursuing, rejecting a Cayley-trapezoidal approximation when its validity required a hidden condition, and refining the Sylvester implementation from a coarse quadratic-gap query route to the final factorized and scaled analysis. The report argues that human-AI co-discovery workflows, with systems such as AIM as important components, are most valuable not as standalone theorem provers, but as research partners for problem formation, connection discovery, derivation, and skeptical review inside a human-gated research loop.

As deep language models (DLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their decision rationale becomes paramount for ensuring trust, safety, and accountability. However, achieving this vital level of interpretability is particularly challenging when these DLMs operate as black-box systems (e.g., via APIs), where access to internal model states (e.g., parameters, gradients) is restricted. Despite numerous efforts, existing explanation methods often fail to concurrently satisfy three key desiderata: (i) inference-time efficiency, (ii) black-box compatibility without inducing out-of-distribution behavior, and (iii) comprehensible explanations grounded in the input's linguistic structure. To address these challenges, we propose a method that explains predictions of DLMs by selecting a small, informative subset of input words. We formulate this as an amortized optimization problem, enabling efficient one-shot inference without the need for input-specific search. Our selection policy is trained via REINFORCE-style policy gradients, allowing discrete word selection in a fully gradient-free setting. To enhance interpretability and align with human linguistic intuition, we integrate graph-structured knowledge into this selection process, fostering linguistically coherent subsets that result in explanations both highly informative and cognitively meaningful to end-users. We evaluated our method on diverse DLM architectures and multiple real-world datasets. It consistently identifies word subsets with enhanced discriminative power and stronger alignment with linguistically salient cues, outperforming both conventional black-box compatible methods and gradient-based approaches that are given oracle access to the black-box model's gradients for a more challenging benchmark. Our code is available at here.

Planning with a learned latent world model is a promising route to control from raw pixels, but a strong world model alone is not enough. We show this experimentally: even with a perfect world model (operationalized by replacing the learned forward predictor with an idealized rollout of the true environment dynamics), a finite-budget sample-based planner still fails on some tasks, indicating that the bottleneck can lie in search rather than in world-model accuracy. Motivated by this gap, we propose IMWM (Intuition Model + World Model), which pairs the world model with an intuition model trained from demonstrations to recognize promising actions. The two models collaborate through three lightweight components: (i) Retrieval Initialization, which initializes the planner's action proposal from a retrieved demonstration; (ii) Hybrid Cost, which combines the intuition score with the world-model rollout cost; and (iii) a Reliability Gate, which adjusts how much the planner trusts intuition in each setting. Across four pixel-based goal-reaching tasks (Two-Room, Reacher, Push-T, and OGBench-Cube), IMWM has higher mean success than the world-model-only planner on all four, with the largest gains on Two-Room (99.2%, +11.5 percentage points) and OGBench-Cube (94.7%, +28.5 percentage points).

Automatic prompt optimization (APO) has driven significant gains in LLM-based agentic workflows. However, existing methods treat each task's prompt as a monolithic, instance-blind string optimized through global edits, producing brittle updates and preventing the reuse of learned sub-behaviors. We propose Prompt Codebooks (PCO), a novel compositional prompt optimization framework that recasts APO as discrete learning over a finite vocabulary of natural-language instincts - atomic, reusable instruction units. PCO organizes prompt-construction knowledge in a discrete codebook and routes each input to a small subset of entries via an LLM-based encoder; a generator composes them into a prompt for the frozen target model; a critic emits a structured verdict that decomposes by attribution into per-variable textual gradients, jointly training the encoder, generator, and codebook under a language-valued min-max objective. The resulting routing is per-instance: different inputs in the same task receive different instinct compositions, a regime structurally inexpressible under instance-blind methods. Across six benchmarks on Qwen3-8B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, PCO improves over zero-shot by up to +30.36 points, surpasses the strongest prior baseline (GEPA) by +3.34 on HotpotQA and +1.11 in aggregate, and reduces deployed prompt length by up to 14.1x versus MIPROv2 and 3.0x versus GEPA using only K=16 instincts.

Class imbalance in deep neural networks (DNNs) has witnessed a rapid increase in research attention in recent years. However, the varying accounts of the reasons behind the poor performance of DNN on imbalance data in pertinent literature shows that little is known about how this agelong phenomenon impacts the performance of DNNs. A better understanding of this problem is crucial to developing effective DNN-based imbalance methods. Thus, this study systematically investigates the impact of class imbalance on the learning dynamics of DNN by monitoring the learning pattern of DNN models on both the majority and minority classes of datasets of varying imbalance ratios. Experimental findings shows that as against learning from balanced datasets where DNN learns the classes similarly, class imbalance has severe deteriorating impact on the performance of DNN, driving the model to underfit the minority class samples in the early training epochs while simultaneously learning only the majority class. Although DNN ultimately learns the minority samples, learning in this manner only results in learnt minority representations that are non-generalizable at test phase because they are merely overfitted to keep the overall training loss as low as possible.

When you read a paper about a new Vision-Language Model today, it can be easy to forget how strange this idea would have sounded not so long ago. Teaching machines to see was already hard. Teaching them to read and generate language was already hard. Asking them to do both at once - and then to reason, answer questions, follow instructions, and sometimes even surprise us - still carries a quiet trace of science fiction, even as it becomes routine. This book was born from a simple feeling: it is too easy to get lost. The field moves quickly, new model names appear constantly, and the gap between "I know the buzzwords" and "I actually understand how this works" can feel uncomfortably wide. I have felt that gap many times. If you are holding this book, you probably have too. My goal is not to provide an exhaustive catalog of every dataset, benchmark, and new model variant. Instead, I want to offer something more modest - and, I hope, more durable: a clear mental map of Vision-Language Models. Enough structure that you can read new papers with confidence; enough intuition that you can design your own systems without feeling as if you are assembling LEGO bricks blindly.

A long-standing challenge in economics lies not in the lack of intuition, but in the difficulty of translating intuitive insights into verifiable research. To address this challenge, we introduce AgentEconomist, an end-to-end interactive system designed to translate abstract intuitions into executable computational experiments. Grounded in a domain-specific knowledge base covering over 13,000 high-quality academic papers, the system employs a modular multi-stage architecture. Specifically, the Idea Development Stage generates literature-grounded hypotheses, the Experimental Design Stage configures simulator-aligned experimental parameters and protocols, and the Experimental Execution Stage runs experiments and returns structured analyses. Together, these stages form a human-in-the-loop, iterative workflow that translates economic intuitions into executable computational experiments. Through extensive experiments involving human expert evaluation and large language models (LLMs) as judges, we show that the system generates research ideas with stronger literature grounding and higher novelty and insight than state-of-the-art generic LLMs. Overall, AgentEconomist adopts a human-AI collaboration paradigm that enables researchers to focus on high-level intuitions, while delegating the labor-intensive processes of translation and computational execution to agents.

High-precision medical diagnosis relies not only on static imaging features but also on the implicit diagnostic memory experts instantly invoke during image interpretation. We pinpoint a fundamental cognitive misalignment in medical VLMs caused by discrete tokenization, leading to quantization loss, long-range information dissipation, and missing case-adaptive expertise. To bridge this gap, we propose ours, a framework for latent diagnostic memory evolution that simulates the experiential invocation of clinicians by dynamically synthesizing implicit diagnostic memories within the model's hidden stream. Specifically, it begins with a Meta Query for Prior Memorization mechanism, where learnable probes retrieve structured priors from an anatomical prior encoder to generate condensed implicit memories. To ensure clinical fidelity, we introduce Causal Counterfactual Refinement (CCR), which leverages reinforcement learning and counterfactual rewards derived from region-level feature masking to quantify the causal contribution of each memory, thereby pruning redundancies and aligning latent representations with diagnostic logic. This evolutionary process culminates in Intrinsic Memory Transition (IMT), a privileged-autonomous dual-branch paradigm that internalizes teacher-branch diagnostic patterns into the student-branch via full-vocabulary divergence alignment. Comprehensive empirical evaluations across multiple datasets demonstrate that ours, by transferring external expertise into endogenous parameters, significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods, particularly chain-of-thought paradigms, in diagnostic accuracy. The code is available at https://github.com/zhcz328/MedSynapse-V.