The emergence of AI Scientists has demonstrated remarkable potential in automating scientific research. However, current approaches largely conceptualize scientific discovery as a solitary optimization or search process, overlooking that knowledge production is inherently a social and historical endeavor. Human scientific insight stems from two distinct yet interconnected sources. First is the individual cognitive trajectory, where a researcher's unique insight is shaped by their evolving research history and stylistic preferences; another is the collective disciplinary memory, where knowledge is sedimented into vast, interconnected networks of citations and concepts. Existing LLMs still struggle to represent these structured, high-fidelity cognitive and social contexts. To bridge this gap, we introduce MirrorMind, a hierarchical cognitive architecture that integrates dual-memory representations within a three-level framework. The Individual Level constructs high-fidelity cognitive models of individual researchers by capturing their episodic, semantic, and persona memories; the Domain Level maps collective knowledge into structured disciplinary concept graphs; and the Interdisciplinary Level that acts as an orthogonal orchestration engine. Crucially, our architecture separates memory storage from agentic execution, enabling AI scientist agents to flexibly access individual memories for unique perspectives or collective structures to reason. We evaluate MirrorMind across four comprehensive tasks, including author-level cognitive simulation, complementary reasoning, cross-disciplinary collaboration promotion, and multi-agent scientific problem solving. The results show that by integrating individual cognitive depth with collective disciplinary breadth, MirrorMind moves beyond simple fact retrieval toward structural, personalized, and insight-generating scientific reasoning.

Predicting the behavior of human participants in strategic settings is an important problem in many domains. Most existing work either assumes that participants are perfectly rational, or attempts to directly model each participant's cognitive processes based on insights from cognitive psychology and experimental economics. In this work, we present an alternative, a deep learning approach that automatically performs cognitive modeling without relying on such expert knowledge. We introduce a novel architecture that allows a single network to generalize across different input and output dimensions by using matrix units rather than scalar units, and show that its performance significantly outperforms that of the previous state of the art, which relies on expert-constructed features.

Pacific Grove, California--Pop a few human stem cells into culture, provide the right molecular signals, and before long a mock cerebral cortex or a cerebellum knockoff could be floating in the medium. These neural, or brain, organoids, typically just a few millimeters across, are not "brains in a dish," as some journalists have described them. But they are becoming ever more sophisticated and true to life, capturing more of the brain's cellular and structural intricacy. "It's surprising how far this [area] has advanced in the last year," says John Evans, a sociologist at the University of California San Diego who follows the research and public opinions on it. That progress has allowed researchers to delve deeper into how the human brain develops, functions, and goes awry in diseases, but it has also sharpened ethical questions.

Technological systems increasingly mediate human information exchange, spanning interactions among humans as well as between humans and artificial agents. The unprecedented scale and reliance on information disseminated through these systems substantially expand the scope of information-based influence that can both enable and undermine sound decision-making. Consequently, understanding and protecting decision-making today faces growing challenges, as individuals and organizations must navigate evolving opportunities and information-based threats across varied domains and information environments. While these risks are widely recognized, research remains fragmented: work evaluating information-based threat phenomena has progressed largely in isolation from foundational studies of human information processing. In this review, we synthesize insights from both domains to identify shared cognitive mechanisms that mediate vulnerability to information-based threats and shape behavioral outcomes. Finally, we outline directions for future research aimed at integrating these perspectives, emphasizing the importance of such integration for mitigating human vulnerabilities and aligning human-machine representations.

Training and education in human-centered fields require authentic practice, yet realistic simulations of human behavior have remained limited. We present a multi-agent psychological simulation system that models internal cognitive-affective processes to generate believable human behaviors. In contrast to black-box neural models, this system is grounded in established psychological theories (e.g., self-efficacy, mindset, social constructivism) and explicitly simulates an ``inner parliament'' of agents corresponding to key psychological factors. These agents deliberate and interact to determine the system's output behavior, enabling unprecedented transparency and alignment with human psychology. We describe the system's architecture and theoretical foundations, illustrate its use in teacher training and research, and discuss how it embodies principles of social learning, cognitive apprenticeship, deliberate practice, and meta-cognition.

The path to higher network autonomy in 6G lies beyond the mere optimization of key performance indicators (KPIs). While KPIs have enabled automation gains under TM Forum Levels 1--3, they remain numerical abstractions that act only as proxies for the real essence of communication networks: seamless connectivity, fairness, adaptability, and resilience. True autonomy requires perceiving and reasoning over the network environment as it is. Such progress can be achieved through \emph{agentic AI}, where large language model (LLM)-powered agents perceive multimodal telemetry, reason with memory, negotiate across domains, and act via APIs to achieve multi-objective goals. However, deploying such agents introduces the challenge of cognitive biases inherited from human design, which can distort reasoning, negotiation, tool use, and actuation. Between neuroscience and AI, this paper provides a tutorial on a selection of well-known biases, including their taxonomy, definition, mathematical formulation, emergence in telecom systems and the commonly impacted agentic components. The tutorial also presents various mitigation strategies tailored to each type of bias. The article finally provides two practical use-cases, which tackle the emergence, impact and mitigation gain of some famous biases in 6G inter-slice and cross-domain management. In particular, anchor randomization, temporal decay and inflection bonus techniques are introduced to specifically address anchoring, temporal and confirmation biases. This avoids that agents stick to the initial high resource allocation proposal or decisions that are recent and/or confirming a prior hypothesis. By grounding decisions in a richer and fairer set of past experiences, the quality and bravery of the agentic agreements in the second use-case, for instance, are leading to $\times 5$ lower latency and around $40\%$ higher energy saving.

People's goal-directed behaviors are influenced by their cognitive biases, and autonomous systems that interact with people should be aware of this. For example, people's attention to objects in their environment will be biased in a way that systematically affects how they perform everyday tasks such as driving to work. Here, building on recent work in computational cognitive science, we formally articulate the attention-aware inverse planning problem, in which the goal is to estimate a person's attentional biases from their actions. We demonstrate how attention-aware inverse planning systematically differs from standard inverse reinforcement learning and how cognitive biases can be inferred from behavior. Finally, we present an approach to attention-aware inverse planning that combines deep reinforcement learning with computational cognitive modeling. We use this approach to infer the attentional strategies of RL agents in real-life driving scenarios selected from the Waymo Open Dataset, demonstrating the scalability of estimating cognitive biases with attention-aware inverse planning.

To understand and collaborate with humans, robots must account for individual human traits, habits, and activities over time. However, most robotic assistants lack these abilities, as they primarily focus on predefined tasks in structured environments and lack a human model to learn from. This work introduces COOPERA, a novel framework for COntinual, OPen-Ended human-Robot Assistance, where simulated humans, driven by psychological traits and long-term intentions, interact with robots in complex environments. By integrating continuous human feedback, our framework, for the first time, enables the study of long-term, open-ended human-robot collaboration (HRC) in different collaborative tasks across various time-scales. Within COOPERA, we introduce a benchmark and an approach to personalize the robot's collaborative actions by learning human traits and context-dependent intents. Experiments validate the extent to which our simulated humans reflect realistic human behaviors and demonstrate the value of inferring and personalizing to human intents for open-ended and long-term HRC. Project Page: https://dannymcy.github.io/coopera/

Hallucination is a long-standing problem that has been actively investigated in Vision-Language Models (VLMs). Existing research commonly attributes hallucinations to technical limitations or sycophancy bias, where the latter means the models tend to generate incorrect answers to align with user expectations. However, these explanations primarily focus on technical or externally driven factors, and may have neglected the possibility that hallucination behaviours might mirror cognitive biases observed in human psychology. In this work, we introduce a psychological taxonomy, categorizing VLMs' cognitive biases that lead to hallucinations, including sycophancy, logical inconsistency, and a newly identified VLMs behaviour: appeal to authority. To systematically analyze these behaviours, we design AIpsych, a scalable benchmark that reveals psychological tendencies in model response patterns. Leveraging this benchmark, we investigate how variations in model architecture and parameter size influence model behaviour when responding to strategically manipulated questions. Our experiments reveal that as model size increases, VLMs exhibit stronger sycophantic tendencies but reduced authority bias, suggesting increasing competence but a potential erosion of response integrity. A human subject study further validates our hypotheses and highlights key behavioural differences between VLMs and human respondents. This work suggests a new perspective for understanding hallucination in VLMs and highlights the importance of integrating psychological principles into model evaluation. The benchmark and codes are tested and available in the anonymous link https://anonymous.4open.science/r/AIpsych-666.Figure 1: Left: a VLM exhibits sycophancy by favouring the questioner's options despite recognising it is a pink cup. Right: a human demonstrates authority bias by accepting the question's framing, also yielding the wrong answer. However, to distinguish between them, we will need to ask more questions. VLMs have made remarkable progress, achieving increasingly higher accuracy in visual reasoning tasks and enhancing real-world applications such as image captioning, visual question answering, and multimodal retrieval (Chen et al., 2023).

Value trade-offs are an integral part of human decision-making and language use, however, current tools for interpreting such dynamic and multi-faceted notions of values in LLMs are limited. In cognitive science, so-called "cognitive models" provide formal accounts of such trade-offs in humans, by modeling the weighting of a speaker's competing utility functions in choosing an action or utterance. Here we use a leading cognitive model of polite speech to systematically evaluate value trade-offs in two encompassing model settings: degrees of reasoning "effort" in frontier black-box models, and RL post-training dynamics of open-source models. Our results highlight patterns of higher informational utility than social utility in reasoning models' default behavior, and demonstrate that these patterns shift in predictable ways when models are prompted to prioritize certain goals over others. Our findings from LLMs' training dynamics suggest large shifts in utility values early on in training with persistent effects of the choice of base model and pretraining data, compared to feedback dataset or alignment method. Our framework offers a flexible tool for probing value trade-offs across diverse model types, providing insights for generating hypotheses about other social behaviors such as sycophancy and for shaping training regimes that better control trade-offs between values during model development.