Test-time reasoning architectures such as those following the Generate-Verify paradigm, where a model iteratively refines or verifies its own generated outputs, prioritise generation and verification but exclude the monitoring processes that determine when and how reasoning should begin. This omission may contribute to the prefix dominance trap, in which models commit early to suboptimal reasoning paths and seldom recover, yielding roughly 20% accuracy loss. We address this architectural gap by proposing the Monitor-Generate-Verify (MGV) framework, a computational translation of Flavell's and Nelson and Narens' metacognitive theories that preserves their psychological detail. MGV extends the Generate-Verify paradigm by adding explicit monitoring that captures metacognitive experiences (from difficulty assessments to confidence judgements) before generation begins and refines future monitoring through verification feedback. Though we present no empirical validation, MGV provides a vocabulary for diagnosing component-level failures in reasoning systems, suggests specific architectural interventions for future designs, and identifies connections to resource-rational analysis that may ground its mechanisms in normative principles.

Understanding the sequence of cognitive operations that underlie decision-making is a fundamental challenge in cognitive neuroscience. Traditional approaches often rely on group-level statistics, which obscure trial-by-trial variations in cognitive strategies. In this study, we introduce a novel machine learning method that combines Hidden Multivariate Pattern analysis with a Structured State Space Sequence model to decode cognitive strategies from electroencephalography data at the trial level. We apply this method to a decision-making task, where participants were instructed to prioritize either speed or accuracy in their responses. Our results reveal an additional cognitive operation, labeled Confirmation, which seems to occur predominantly in the accuracy condition but also frequently in the speed condition. The modeled probability that this operation occurs is associated with higher probability of responding correctly as well as changes of mind, as indexed by electromyography data. By successfully modeling cognitive operations at the trial level, we provide empirical evidence for dynamic variability in decision strategies, challenging the assumption of homogeneous cognitive processes within experimental conditions. Our approach shows the potential of sequence modeling in cognitive neuroscience to capture trial-level variability that is obscured by aggregate analyses. The introduced method offers a new way to detect and understand cognitive strategies in a data-driven manner, with implications for both theoretical research and practical applications in many fields.

One critical challenge for large language models (LLMs) for making complex reasoning is their reliance on matching reasoning patterns from training data, instead of proactively selecting the most appropriate cognitive strategy to solve a given task. Existing approaches impose fixed cognitive structures that enhance performance in specific tasks but lack adaptability across diverse scenarios. To address this limitation, we introduce METASCALE, a test-time scaling framework based on meta-thoughts -- adaptive thinking strategies tailored to each task. METASCALE initializes a pool of candidate meta-thoughts, then iteratively selects and evaluates them using a multi-armed bandit algorithm with upper confidence bound selection, guided by a reward model. To further enhance adaptability, a genetic algorithm evolves high-reward meta-thoughts, refining and extending the strategy pool over time. By dynamically proposing and optimizing meta-thoughts at inference time, METASCALE improves both accuracy and generalization across a wide range of tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that MetaScale consistently outperforms standard inference approaches, achieving an 11% performance gain in win rate on Arena-Hard for GPT-4o, surpassing o1-mini by 0.9% under style control. Notably, METASCALE scales more effectively with increasing sampling budgets and produces more structured, expert-level responses.

Selecting the right algorithm is an important problem in computer science, because the algorithm often has to exploit the structure of the input to be efficient. The human mind faces the same challenge. Therefore, solutions to the algorithm selection problem can inspire models of human strategy selection and vice versa. Here, we view the algorithm selection problem as a special case of metareasoning and derive a solution that outperforms existing methods in sorting algorithm selection. We apply our theory to model how people choose between cognitive strategies and test its prediction in a behavioral experiment. We find that people quickly learn to adaptively choose between cognitive strategies. People's choices in our experiment are consistent with our model but inconsistent with previous theories of human strategy selection. Rational metareasoning appears to be a promising framework for reverse-engineering how people choose among cognitive strategies and translating the results into better solutions to the algorithm selection problem.

Selecting the right algorithm is an important problem in computer science, because the algorithm often has to exploit the structure of the input to be efficient. The human mind faces the same challenge. Therefore, solutions to the algorithm selection problem can inspire models of human strategy selection and vice versa. Here, we view the algorithm selection problem as a special case of metareasoning and derive a solution that outperforms existing methods in sorting algorithm selection. We apply our theory to model how people choose between cognitive strategies and test its prediction in a behavioral experiment. We find that people quickly learn to adaptively choose between cognitive strategies. People's choices in our experiment are consistent with our model but inconsistent with previous theories of human strategy selection. Rational metareasoning appears to be a promising framework for reverse-engineering how people choose among cognitive strategies and translating the results into better solutions to the algorithm selection problem.

Persuasion, as one of the crucial abilities in human communication, has garnered extensive attention from researchers within the field of intelligent dialogue systems. We humans tend to persuade others to change their viewpoints, attitudes or behaviors through conversations in various scenarios (e.g., persuasion for social good, arguing in online platforms). Developing dialogue agents that can persuade others to accept certain standpoints is essential to achieving truly intelligent and anthropomorphic dialogue system. Benefiting from the substantial progress of Large Language Models (LLMs), dialogue agents have acquired an exceptional capability in context understanding and response generation. However, as a typical and complicated cognitive psychological system, persuasive dialogue agents also require knowledge from the domain of cognitive psychology to attain a level of human-like persuasion. Consequently, the cognitive strategy-enhanced persuasive dialogue agent (defined as CogAgent), which incorporates cognitive strategies to achieve persuasive targets through conversation, has become a predominant research paradigm. To depict the research trends of CogAgent, in this paper, we first present several fundamental cognitive psychology theories and give the formalized definition of three typical cognitive strategies, including the persuasion strategy, the topic path planning strategy, and the argument structure prediction strategy. Then we propose a new system architecture by incorporating the formalized definition to lay the foundation of CogAgent. Representative works are detailed and investigated according to the combined cognitive strategy, followed by the summary of authoritative benchmarks and evaluation metrics. Finally, we summarize our insights on open issues and future directions of CogAgent for upcoming researchers.

In the eyes of many leaders, artificial intelligence and cognitive technologies are the most disruptive forces on the horizon. But most organizations don't have a strategy to address them. This article is part of an MIT SMR initiative exploring how technology is reshaping the practice of management. Artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive technologies are burgeoning, but few companies are yet getting value from their investments. The reason, in our view, is that many of the projects companies undertake aren't targeted at important business problems or opportunities. Some projects are simply too ambitious -- the technology isn't ready, or the organizational change required is too great. In short, most organizations don't have a strategy for cognitive technologies.

In the eyes of many leaders, artificial intelligence and cognitive technologies are the most disruptive forces on the horizon. But most organizations don't have a strategy to address them. This article is part of an MIT SMR initiative exploring how technology is reshaping the practice of management. Artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive technologies are burgeoning, but few companies are yet getting value from their investments. The reason, in our view, is that many of the projects companies undertake aren't targeted at important business problems or opportunities.

Selecting the right algorithm is an important problem in computer science, because the algorithm often has to exploit the structure of the input to be efficient. The human mind faces the same challenge. Therefore, solutions to the algorithm selection problem can inspire models of human strategy selection and vice versa. Here, we view the algorithm selection problem as a special case of metareasoning and derive a solution that outperforms existing methods in sorting algorithm selection. We apply our theory to model how people choose between cognitive strategies and test its prediction in a behavioral experiment. We find that people quickly learn to adaptively choose between cognitive strategies. People's choices in our experiment are consistent with our model but inconsistent with previous theories of human strategy selection. Rational metareasoning appears to be a promising framework for reverse-engineering how people choose among cognitive strategies and translating the results into better solutions to the algorithm selection problem.

Human decisional processes result from the employment of selected quantities of relevant information, generally synthesized from environmental incoming data and stored memories. Their main goal is the production of an appropriate and adaptive response to a cognitive or behavioral task. Different strategies of response production can be adopted, among which haphazard trials, formation of mental schemes and heuristics. In this paper, we propose a model of Boolean neural network that incorporates these strategies by recurring to global optimization strategies during the learning session. The model characterizes as well the passage from an unstructured/chaotic attractor neural network typical of data-driven processes to a faster one, forward-only and representative of schema-driven processes. Moreover, a simplified version of the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) is introduced in order to test the model. Our results match with experimental data and point out some relevant knowledge coming from psychological domain.