Despite the explosive growth of AI and the technologies built upon it, predicting and inferring the sub-optimal behavior of users or human collaborators remains a critical challenge. In many cases, such behaviors are not a result of irrationality, but rather a rational decision made given inherent cognitive bounds and biased beliefs about the world. In this paper, we formally introduce a class of computational-rational (CR) user models for cognitively-bounded agents acting optimally under biased beliefs. The key novelty lies in explicitly modeling how a bounded memory process leads to a dynamically inconsistent and biased belief state and, consequently, sub-optimal sequential decision-making. We address the challenge of identifying the latent user-specific bound and inferring biased belief states from passive observations on the fly. We argue that for our formalized CR model family with an explicit and parameterized cognitive process, this challenge is tractable. To support our claim, we propose an efficient online inference method based on nested particle filtering that simultaneously tracks the user's latent belief state and estimates the unknown cognitive bound from a stream of observed actions. We validate our approach in a representative navigation task using memory decay as an example of a cognitive bound. With simulations, we show that (1) our CR model generates intuitively plausible behaviors corresponding to different levels of memory capacity, and (2) our inference method accurately and efficiently recovers the ground-truth cognitive bounds from limited observations ($\le 100$ steps). We further demonstrate how this approach provides a principled foundation for developing adaptive AI assistants, enabling adaptive assistance that accounts for the user's memory limitations.

Boolean equivalence allows Boolean networks with identical functionality to exhibit diverse graph structures. This gives more room for exploration in logic optimization, while also posing a challenge for tasks involving consistency between Boolean networks. To tackle this challenge, we introduce BoolSkeleton, a novel Boolean network skeletonization method that improves the consistency and reliability of design-specific evaluations. BoolSkeleton comprises two key steps: preprocessing and reduction. In preprocessing, the Boolean network is transformed into a defined Boolean dependency graph, where nodes are assigned the functionality-related status. Next, the homogeneous and heterogeneous patterns are defined for the node-level pattern reduction step. Heterogeneous patterns are preserved to maintain critical functionality-related dependencies, while homogeneous patterns can be reduced. Parameter K of the pattern further constrains the fanin size of these patterns, enabling fine-tuned control over the granularity of graph reduction. To validate BoolSkeleton's effectiveness, we conducted four analysis/downstream tasks around the Boolean network: compression analysis, classification, critical path analysis, and timing prediction, demonstrating its robustness across diverse scenarios. Furthermore, it improves above 55% in the average accuracy compared to the original Boolean network for the timing prediction task. These experiments underscore the potential of BoolSkeleton to enhance design consistency in logic synthesis.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI systems remain truthful even when their capabilities exceed those of their evaluators. Yet when humans serve as evaluators, their own beliefs and biases can impair judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial factuality claims on COVID-19 and climate change where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies. Study I recruits human judges with either mainstream or skeptical beliefs who evaluate claims through two protocols: debate (interaction with two AI advisors arguing opposing sides) or consultancy (interaction with a single AI advisor). Study II uses AI judges with and without human-like personas to evaluate the same protocols. In Study I, debate consistently improves human judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy by 4-10% across COVID-19 and climate change claims. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (up to +15.2% accuracy on COVID-19 claims), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In Study II, AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight in contested domains.

Thanks to the remarkable human-like capabilities of machine learning (ML) models in perceptual and cognitive tasks, frameworks integrating ML within rational agent architectures are gaining traction. Yet, the landscape remains fragmented and incoherent, often focusing on embedding ML into generic agent containers while overlooking the expressive power of rational architectures--such as Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) agents. This paper presents a fine-grained systematisation of existing approaches, using the BDI paradigm as a reference. Our analysis illustrates the fast-evolving literature on rational agents enhanced by ML, and identifies key research opportunities and open challenges for designing effective rational ML agents.

Proof autoformalization, the task of translating natural language theorems and proofs into machine-verifiable code, is a critical step for integrating large language models into rigorous mathematical workflows. Current approaches focus on producing executable code, but they frequently fail to preserve the semantic meaning and logical structure of the original human-written argument. To address this, we introduce ProofFlow, a novel pipeline that treats structural fidelity as a primary objective. ProofFlow first constructs a directed acyclic graph (DAG) to map the logical dependencies between proof steps. Then, it employs a novel lemma-based approach to systematically formalize each step as an intermediate lemma, preserving the logical structure of the original argument. To facilitate evaluation, we present a new benchmark of 184 undergraduate-level problems, manually annotated with step-by-step solutions and logical dependency graphs, and introduce ProofScore, a new composite metric to evaluate syntactic correctness, semantic faithfulness, and structural fidelity. Experimental results show our pipeline sets a new state-of-the-art for autoformalization, achieving a ProofScore of 0.545, substantially exceeding baselines like full-proof formalization (0.123), which processes the entire proof at once, and step-proof formalization (0.072), which handles each step independently. Our pipeline, benchmark, and score metric are open-sourced to encourage further progress at https://github.com/Huawei-AI4Math/ProofFlow.

Autoregressive (AR) models remain the standard for natural language generation but still suffer from high latency due to strictly sequential decoding. Recent diffusion-inspired approaches, such as LlaDA and Dream, mitigate this by generating in parallel, yet they suffer from two core limitations: information loss, as predictive distributions for non-finalized tokens are discarded at each step, and premature commitment, where local decisions are made without sufficient global coordination. We introduce Latent Refinement Decoding (LRD), a two-stage framework with Latent Refinement and a Predictive Feedback Loop. The first stage maintains masked positions as distributional mixtures of predicted tokens and the mask embedding, allowing the model to establish more globally consistent beliefs. The second stage progressively finalizes confident tokens while retaining uncertain ones for iterative feedback. KL-divergence dynamics provide a principled and reliable criterion for convergence and early stopping. Experiments across coding (HumanEval +6.3, MBPP +2.6) and reasoning (GSM8K +2.9, MATH500 +3.8) show that LRD improves accuracy while delivering speedups of up to 10.6x, making it a strong and versatile alternative for parallel sequence generation.

Belief systems are rarely globally consistent, yet effective reasoning often persists locally. We propose a novel graph-theoretic framework that cleanly separates credibility--external, a priori trust in sources--from confidence--an internal, emergent valuation induced by network structure. Beliefs are nodes in a directed, signed, weighted graph whose edges encode support and contradiction. Confidence is obtained by a contractive propagation process that mixes a stated prior with structure-aware influence and guarantees a unique, stable solution. Within this dynamics, we define reasoning zones: high-confidence, structurally balanced subgraphs on which classical inference is safe despite global contradictions. We provide a near-linear procedure that seeds zones by confidence, tests balance using a parity-based coloring, and applies a greedy, locality-preserving repair with Jaccard de-duplication to build a compact atlas. To model belief change, we introduce shock updates that locally downscale support and elevate targeted contradictions while preserving contractivity via a simple backtracking rule. Re-propagation yields localized reconfiguration-zones may shrink, split, or collapse--without destabilizing the entire graph. We outline an empirical protocol on synthetic signed graphs with planted zones, reporting zone recovery, stability under shocks, and runtime. The result is a principled foundation for contradiction-tolerant reasoning that activates classical logic precisely where structure supports it.

Autonomous navigation in unfamiliar environments requires robots to simultaneously explore, localise, and plan under uncertainty, without relying on predefined maps or extensive training. We present a biologically inspired, Active Inference-based framework, Active Inference MAPping and Planning (AIMAPP). This model unifies mapping, localisation, and decision-making within a single generative model. Inspired by hippocampal navigation, it uses topological reasoning, place-cell encoding, and episodic memory to guide behaviour. The agent builds and updates a sparse topological map online, learns state transitions dynamically, and plans actions by minimising Expected Free Energy. This allows it to balance goal-directed and exploratory behaviours. We implemented a ROS-compatible navigation system that is sensor and robot-agnostic, capable of integrating with diverse hardware configurations. It operates in a fully self-supervised manner, is resilient to drift, and supports both exploration and goal-directed navigation without any pre-training. We demonstrate robust performance in large-scale real and simulated environments against state-of-the-art planning models, highlighting the system's adaptability to ambiguous observations, environmental changes, and sensor noise. The model offers a biologically inspired, modular solution to scalable, self-supervised navigation in unstructured settings. AIMAPP is available at https://github.com/decide-ugent/AIMAPP.

As an example, consider the problem of tracking an autonomous robot with an unknown starting position in a d d grid (Figure 1). Suppose the agent's policy is known, and an observer sees that the agent moved a step without colliding into a wall. This information indicates how the observer should update their beliefs about the agent's position. Tracking these belief states can be challenging when they are either continuous or too large to enumerate (Solinas et al., 2023)--even when the agent's policy and the environment dynamics are known. A common approach frames belief state modeling as a Bayesian filtering problem in which a posterior is maintained and updated with each new observation. Classical Bayesian filters, such as the Kalman Filter (Kalman, 1960) and its nonlinear variants (e.g., Extended and Unscented Kalman Filters (Sorenson, 1985; Julier & Uhlmann, 2004)), assume that the underlying distributions are unimodal and approximately Gaussian. While computationally efficient, this limits their applicability in settings that do not satisfy these assumptions.

Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are powerful machine-learning models capable of capturing intricate non-linear relationships. They are widely used nowadays across numerous scientific and engineering domains, driving advancements in both research and real-world applications. In our recent work, we focused on the statics and dynamics of a particular subclass of ANNs, which we refer to as binary ANNs. A binary ANN is a feed-forward network in which both inputs and outputs are restricted to binary values, making it particularly suitable for a variety of practical use cases. Our previous study approached binary ANNs through the lens of belief-change theory, specifically the Alchourron, Gardenfors and Makinson (AGM) framework, yielding several key insights. Most notably, we demonstrated that the knowledge embodied in a binary ANN (expressed through its input-output behaviour) can be symbolically represented using a propositional logic language. Moreover, the process of modifying a belief set (through revision or contraction) was mapped onto a gradual transition through a series of intermediate belief sets. Analogously, the training of binary ANNs was conceptualized as a sequence of such belief-set transitions, which we showed can be formalized using full-meet AGM-style belief change. In the present article, we extend this line of investigation by addressing some critical limitations of our previous study. Specifically, we show that Dalal's method for belief change naturally induces a structured, gradual evolution of states of belief. More importantly, given the known shortcomings of full-meet belief change, we demonstrate that the training dynamics of binary ANNs can be more effectively modelled using robust AGM-style change operations -- namely, lexicographic revision and moderate contraction -- that align with the Darwiche-Pearl framework for iterated belief change.