The quantification of social science remains a longstanding challenge, largely due to the philosophical nature of its foundational theories. Although quantum computing has advanced rapidly in recent years, its relevance to social theory remains underexplored. Most existing research focuses on micro-cognitive models or philosophical analogies, leaving a gap in system-level applications of quantum principles to the analysis of social systems. This study addresses that gap by proposing a theoretical and computational framework that combines quantum mechanics with Generative AI to simulate the emergence and evolution of social norms. Drawing on core quantum concepts--such as superposition, entanglement, and probabilistic measurement--this research models society as a dynamic, uncertain system and sets up five ideal-type experiments. These scenarios are simulated using 25 generative agents, each assigned evolving roles as compliers, resistors, or enforcers. Within a simulated environment monitored by a central observer (the Watcher), agents interact, respond to surveillance, and adapt to periodic normative disruptions. These interactions allow the system to self-organize under external stress and reveal emergent patterns. Key findings show that quantum principles, when integrated with generative AI, enable the modeling of uncertainty, emergence, and interdependence in complex social systems. Simulations reveal patterns including convergence toward normative order, the spread of resistance, and the spontaneous emergence of new equilibria in social rules. In conclusion, this study introduces a novel computational lens that lays the groundwork for a quantum-informed social theory. It offers interdisciplinary insights into how society can be understood not just as a structure to observe but as a dynamic system to simulate and redesign through quantum technologies.

Student cognitive modeling (SCM) is a fundamental task in intelligent education, with applications ranging from personalized learning to educational resource allocation. By exploiting students' response logs, SCM aims to predict their exercise performance as well as estimate knowledge proficiency in a subject. Data mining approaches such as matrix factorization can obtain high accuracy in predicting student performance on exercises, but the knowledge proficiency is unknown or poorly estimated. The situation is further exacerbated if only sparse interactions exist between exercises and students (or knowledge concepts). To solve this dilemma, we root monotonicity (a fundamental psychometric theory on educational assessments) in a co-factorization framework and present an autoencoder-like nonnegative matrix co-factorization (AE-NMCF), which improves the accuracy of estimating the student's knowledge proficiency via an encoder-decoder learning pipeline.

Humans learn from visual inputs at multiple timescales, both rapidly and flexibly acquiring visual knowledge over short periods, and robustly accumulating online learning progress over longer periods. Modeling these powerful learning capabilities is an important problem for computational visual cognitive science, and models that could replicate them would be of substantial utility in real-world computer vision settings. In this work, we establish benchmarks for both real-time and life-long continual visual learning. Our real-time learning benchmark measures a model's ability to match the rapid visual behavior changes of real humans over the course of minutes and hours, given a stream of visual inputs. Our life-long learning benchmark evaluates the performance of models in a purely online learning curriculum obtained directly from child visual experience over the course of years of development.

We introduce automated scientific minimization of regret (ASMR) -- a framework for automated computational cognitive science. Building on the principles of scientific regret minimization, ASMR leverages Centaur -- a recently proposed foundation model of human cognition -- to identify gaps in an interpretable cognitive model. These gaps are then addressed through automated revisions generated by a language-based reasoning model. We demonstrate the utility of this approach in a multi-attribute decision-making task, showing that ASMR discovers cognitive models that predict human behavior at noise ceiling while retaining interpretability. Taken together, our results highlight the potential of ASMR to automate core components of the cognitive modeling pipeline.

A central goal of cognitive modeling is to develop models that not only predict human behavior but also provide insight into the underlying cognitive mechanisms. While neural network models trained on large-scale behavioral data often achieve strong predictive performance, they typically fall short in offering interpretable explanations of the cognitive processes they capture. In this work, we explore the potential of pretrained large language models (LLMs) to serve as dual-purpose cognitive models--capable of both accurate prediction and interpretable explanation in natural language. Specifically, we employ reinforcement learning with outcome-based rewards to guide LLMs toward generating explicit reasoning traces for explaining human risky choices. Our findings demonstrate that this approach produces high-quality explanations alongside strong quantitative predictions of human decisions.

Autonomous AI is no longer a hard-to-reach concept, it enables the agents to move beyond executing tasks to independently addressing complex problems, adapting to change while handling the uncertainty of the environment. However, what makes the agents truly autonomous? It is agentic reasoning, that is crucial for foundation models to develop symbolic logic, statistical correlations, or large-scale pattern recognition to process information, draw inferences, and make decisions. However, it remains unclear why and how existing agentic reasoning approaches work, in comparison to biological reasoning, which instead is deeply rooted in neural mechanisms involving hierarchical cognition, multimodal integration, and dynamic interactions. In this work, we propose a novel neuroscience-inspired framework for agentic reasoning. Grounded in three neuroscience-based definitions and supported by mathematical and biological foundations, we propose a unified framework modeling reasoning from perception to action, encompassing four core types, perceptual, dimensional, logical, and interactive, inspired by distinct functional roles observed in the human brain. We apply this framework to systematically classify and analyze existing AI reasoning methods, evaluating their theoretical foundations, computational designs, and practical limitations. We also explore its implications for building more generalizable, cognitively aligned agents in physical and virtual environments. Finally, building on our framework, we outline future directions and propose new neural-inspired reasoning methods, analogous to chain-of-thought prompting. By bridging cognitive neuroscience and AI, this work offers a theoretical foundation and practical roadmap for advancing agentic reasoning in intelligent systems. The associated project can be found at: https://github.com/BioRAILab/Awesome-Neuroscience-Agent-Reasoning .

Traditional human reliability analysis (HRA) methods, such as IDHEAS-ECA, rely on expert judgment and empirical rules that often overlook the cognitive underpinnings of human error. Moreover, conducting human-in-the-loop experiments for advanced nuclear power plants is increasingly impractical due to novel interfaces and limited operational data. This study proposes a cognitive-mechanistic framework (COGMIF) that enhances the IDHEAS-ECA methodology by integrating an ACT-R-based human digital twin (HDT) with TimeGAN-augmented simulation. The ACT-R model simulates operator cognition, including memory retrieval, goal-directed procedural reasoning, and perceptual-motor execution--under high-fidelity scenarios derived from a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) simulator. To overcome the resource constraints of large-scale cognitive modeling, TimeGAN is trained on ACT-R-generated time-series data to produce high-fidelity synthetic operator behavior datasets. These simulations are then used to drive IDHEAS-ECA assessments, enabling scalable, mechanism-informed estimation of human error probabilities (HEPs). Comparative analyses with SPAR-H and sensitivity assessments demonstrate the robustness and practical advantages of the proposed COGMIF. This work offers a credible and computationally efficient pathway to integrate cognitive theory into industrial HRA practices. Keywords: Human Reliability, Human Digital Twins, IDHEAS-ECA, TimeGAN, Bayesian 1 Introduction Human reliability analysis (HRA) plays a pivotal role in the safety assessment of complex socio-technical systems, particularly in high-risk domains such as nuclear power generation [1]. As a fundamental component of probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), HRA aims to estimate the likelihood of human error under specific operational contexts, thereby supporting risk-informed decision-making and the design of resilient safety systems. Over the past decades, a range of structured methodologies, such as the standardized plant analysis risk-human reliability analysis (SPAR-H) [2], the technique for human error rate prediction (THERP) [3], and more recently, the integrated human event analysis system for event and condition assessment (IDHEAS-ECA) [4], have been developed to quantify human error probabilities (HEPs). While these frameworks offer operational utility, they are primarily grounded in expert judgment, predefined performance shaping factors (PSFs), and empirically derived databases, often lacking a mechanistic understanding of the cognitive processes that drive operator actions and errors. Furthermore, traditional HRA approaches are highly dependent on two major data sources: (1) retrospective analysis of operational events, and (2) human-in-the-loop (HITL) simulation experiments conducted in controlled environments.

Patterns are fundamental to human cognition, enabling the recognition of structure and regularity across diverse domains. In this work, we focus on structural repeats, patterns that arise from the repetition of hierarchical relations within sequential data, and develop a candidate computational model of how humans detect and understand such structural repeats. Based on a weighted deduction system, our model infers the minimal generative process of a given sequence in the form of a Template program, a formalism that enriches the context-free grammar with repetition combinators. Such representation efficiently encodes the repetition of sub-computations in a recursive manner. As a proof of concept, we demonstrate the expressiveness of our model on short sequences from music and action planning. The proposed model offers broader insights into the mental representations and cognitive mechanisms underlying human pattern recognition.

Modern driving involves interactive technologies that can divert attention, increasing the risk of accidents. This paper presents a computational cognitive model that simulates human multitasking while driving. Based on optimal supervisory control theory, the model predicts how multitasking adapts to variations in driving demands, interactive tasks, and automation levels. Unlike previous models, it accounts for context-dependent multitasking across different degrees of driving automation. The model predicts longer in-car glances on straight roads and shorter glances during curves. It also anticipates increased glance durations with driver aids such as lane-centering assistance and their interaction with environmental demands. Validated against two empirical datasets, the model offers insights into driver multitasking amid evolving in-car technologies and automation.

AI Biases as Asymmetries: A Review to Guide Practice Gabriella Waters (CEAMLS, Morgan State University)* Phillip Honenberger (CEAMLS, Morgan State University)* *Equal contribution [Preprint - Nov. 21, 2024] Abstract The understanding of bias in AI is currently undergoing a revolution. Initially understood as errors or flaws, biases are increasingly recognized as integral to AI systems and sometimes preferable to less biased alternatives. In this paper we review the reasons for this changed understanding and provide new guidance on two questions: First, how should we think about and measure biases in AI systems, consistent with the new understanding? Second, what kinds of bias in an AI system should we accept or even amplify, and what kinds should we minimize or eliminate, and why? The key to answering both questions, we argue, is to understand biases as "violations of a symmetry standard" (following Kelly). We distinguish three main types of asymmetry in AI systems - error biases, inequality biases, and process biases - and highlight places in the pipeline of AI development and application where bias of each type is likely to be good, bad, or inevitable. Introduction The understanding of bias in AI is currently undergoing a revolution. Initially perceived as errors or flaws, biases are increasingly recognized as integral to AI systems and sometimes preferable to less biased alternatives. Cognitive psychology and statistics have informed this shift, highlighting the benefits and costs of biases in decision-making processes. Cognitive psychology presents biases as often helpful in making decisions under conditions of uncertainty. Similarly, statistical methods acknowledge biases as often useful and sometimes necessary for making inferences from data. These insights have been instrumental in redefining biases as not inherently negative, but as sometimes essential components that can and should be harnessed to improve AI systems.