In the realm of Intelligent Tutoring System (ITS), the accurate assessment of students' knowledge states through Knowledge Tracing (KT) is crucial for personalized learning. However, due to data bias, $\textit{i.e.}$, the unbalanced distribution of question groups ($\textit{e.g.}$, concepts), conventional KT models are plagued by cognitive bias, which tends to result in cognitive underload for overperformers and cognitive overload for underperformers. More seriously, this bias is amplified with the exercise recommendations by ITS. After delving into the causal relations in the KT models, we identify the main cause as the confounder effect of students' historical correct rate distribution over question groups on the student representation and prediction score. Towards this end, we propose a Disentangled Knowledge Tracing (DisKT) model, which separately models students' familiar and unfamiliar abilities based on causal effects and eliminates the impact of the confounder in student representation within the model. Additionally, to shield the contradictory psychology ($\textit{e.g.}$, guessing and mistaking) in the students' biased data, DisKT introduces a contradiction attention mechanism. Furthermore, DisKT enhances the interpretability of the model predictions by integrating a variant of Item Response Theory. Experimental results on 11 benchmarks and 3 synthesized datasets with different bias strengths demonstrate that DisKT significantly alleviates cognitive bias and outperforms 16 baselines in evaluation accuracy.

Human-in-the-loop (HITL) frameworks are increasingly recognized for their potential to improve annotation accuracy in emotion estimation systems by combining machine predictions with human expertise. This study focuses on integrating a high-performing image-based emotion model into a HITL annotation framework to evaluate the collaborative potential of human-machine interaction and identify the psychological and practical factors critical to successful collaboration. Specifically, we investigate how varying model reliability and cognitive framing influence human trust, cognitive load, and annotation behavior in HITL systems. We demonstrate that model reliability and psychological framing significantly impact annotators' trust, engagement, and consistency, offering insights into optimizing HITL frameworks. Through three experimental scenarios with 29 participants--baseline model reliability (S1), fabricated errors (S2), and cognitive bias introduced by negative framing (S3)--we analyzed behavioral and qualitative data. Reliable predictions in S1 yielded high trust and annotation consistency, while unreliable outputs in S2 led to increased critical evaluations but also heightened frustration and response variability. Negative framing in S3 revealed how cognitive bias influenced participants to perceive the model as more relatable and accurate, despite misinformation regarding its reliability. These findings highlight the importance of both reliable machine outputs and psychological factors in shaping effective human-machine collaboration. By leveraging the strengths of both human oversight and automated systems, this study establishes a scalable HITL framework for emotion annotation and lays the foundation for broader applications in adaptive learning and human-computer interaction.

Attentional Neural Network is a new framework that integrates top-down cognitive bias and bottom-up feature extraction in one coherent architecture. The top-down influence is especially effective when dealing with high noise or difficult segmentation problems. Our system is modular and extensible. It is also easy to train and cheap to run, and yet can accommodate complex behaviors. We obtain classification accuracy better than or competitive with state of art results on the MNIST variation dataset, and successfully disentangle overlaid digits with high success rates. We view such a general purpose framework as an essential foundation for a larger system emulating the cognitive abilities of the whole brain.

Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. However, recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. In this paper, we aim to interpret LLMs' intrinsic self-correction for different tasks, especially for those failure cases. By including one simple task and three complex tasks with state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs like ChatGPT families (o1, 4o, 3.5-turbo) and Llama families (2-7B, 3-8B, and 3.1-8B), we design three interpretation methods to reveal the dark side of LLMs' intrinsic self-correction. We identify intrinsic self-correction can (1) cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions; (2) introduce human-like cognitive bias on complex tasks. In light of our findings, we also provide two simple yet effective strategies for alleviation: question repeating and supervised fine-tuning with a few samples. We open-source our work at https://x-isc.info/.

Illusions of causality occur when people develop the belief that there is a causal connection between two variables with no supporting evidence. This cognitive bias has been proposed to underlie many societal problems including social prejudice, stereotype formation, misinformation and superstitious thinking. In this research we investigate whether large language models develop the illusion of causality in real-world settings. We evaluated and compared news headlines generated by GPT-4o-Mini, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, and Gemini-1.5-Pro to determine whether the models incorrectly framed correlations as causal relationships. In order to also measure sycophantic behavior, which occurs when a model aligns with a user's beliefs in order to look favorable even if it is not objectively correct, we additionally incorporated the bias into the prompts, observing if this manipulation increases the likelihood of the models exhibiting the illusion of causality. We found that Claude-3.5-Sonnet is the model that presents the lowest degree of causal illusion aligned with experiments on Correlation-to-Causation Exaggeration in human-written press releases. On the other hand, our findings suggest that while mimicry sycophancy increases the likelihood of causal illusions in these models, especially in GPT-4o-Mini, Claude-3.5-Sonnet remains the most robust against this cognitive bias.

Detecting cognitive biases in large language models (LLMs) is a fascinating task that aims to probe the existing cognitive biases within these models. Current methods for detecting cognitive biases in language models generally suffer from incomplete detection capabilities and a restricted range of detectable bias types. To address this issue, we introduced the 'MindScope' dataset, which distinctively integrates static and dynamic elements. The static component comprises 5,170 open-ended questions spanning 72 cognitive bias categories. The dynamic component leverages a rule-based, multi-agent communication framework to facilitate the generation of multi-round dialogues. This framework is flexible and readily adaptable for various psychological experiments involving LLMs. In addition, we introduce a multi-agent detection method applicable to a wide range of detection tasks, which integrates Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), competitive debate, and a reinforcement learning-based decision module. Demonstrating substantial effectiveness, this method has shown to improve detection accuracy by as much as 35.10% compared to GPT-4. Codes and appendix are available at https://github.com/2279072142/MindScope.

Despite large language models (LLMs) increasingly becoming important components of news recommender systems, employing LLMs in such systems introduces new risks, such as the influence of cognitive biases in LLMs. Cognitive biases refer to systematic patterns of deviation from norms or rationality in the judgment process, which can result in inaccurate outputs from LLMs, thus threatening the reliability of news recommender systems. Specifically, LLM-based news recommender systems affected by cognitive biases could lead to the propagation of misinformation, reinforcement of stereotypes, and the formation of echo chambers. In this paper, we explore the potential impact of multiple cognitive biases on LLM-based news recommender systems, including anchoring bias, framing bias, status quo bias and group attribution bias. Furthermore, to facilitate future research at improving the reliability of LLM-based news recommender systems, we discuss strategies to mitigate these biases through data augmentation, prompt engineering and learning algorithms aspects.

Attentional Neural Network is a new framework that integrates top-down cognitive bias and bottom-up feature extraction in one coherent architecture. The top-down influence is especially effective when dealing with high noise or difficult segmentation problems. Our system is modular and extensible. It is also easy to train and cheap to run, and yet can accommodate complex behaviors. We obtain classification accuracy better than or competitive with state of art results on the MNIST variation dataset, and successfully disentangle overlaid digits with high success rates. We view such a general purpose framework as an essential foundation for a larger system emulating the cognitive abilities of the whole brain.

Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. However, given their training on human (created) data, LLMs can inherit both societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to cognitive bias. Such human-like bias can impede fair and explainable decisions made with LLM assistance. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs, particularly in high-stakes decision-making tasks. Inspired by prior research in psychology and cognitive sciences, we develop a dataset containing 16,800 prompts to evaluate different cognitive biases (e.g., prompt-induced, sequential, inherent). We test various bias mitigation strategies, amidst proposing a novel method using LLMs to debias their own prompts. Our analysis provides a comprehensive picture on the presence and effects of cognitive bias across different commercial and open-source models. We demonstrate that our self-help debiasing effectively mitigate cognitive bias without having to manually craft examples for each bias type.

There is increasing interest in the application large language models (LLMs) to the medical field, in part because of their impressive performance on medical exam questions. While promising, exam questions do not reflect the complexity of real patient-doctor interactions. In reality, physicians' decisions are shaped by many complex factors, such as patient compliance, personal experience, ethical beliefs, and cognitive bias. Taking a step toward understanding this, our hypothesis posits that when LLMs are confronted with clinical questions containing cognitive biases, they will yield significantly less accurate responses compared to the same questions presented without such biases. In this study, we developed BiasMedQA, a benchmark for evaluating cognitive biases in LLMs applied to medical tasks. Using BiasMedQA we evaluated six LLMs, namely GPT-4, Mixtral-8x70B, GPT-3.5, PaLM-2, Llama 2 70B-chat, and the medically specialized PMC Llama 13B. We tested these models on 1,273 questions from the US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Steps 1, 2, and 3, modified to replicate common clinically-relevant cognitive biases. Our analysis revealed varying effects for biases on these LLMs, with GPT-4 standing out for its resilience to bias, in contrast to Llama 2 70B-chat and PMC Llama 13B, which were disproportionately affected by cognitive bias. Our findings highlight the critical need for bias mitigation in the development of medical LLMs, pointing towards safer and more reliable applications in healthcare.