Computational cognitive models are a fundamental tool in behavioral neuroscience.

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. The resulting estimation problem is nonconvex with nonnegative constraints. We introduce a projected gradient method based on block coordinate descent with Lipschitz constants and guarantee the method's theoretical convergence. Experiments on several real-world data sets demonstrate the efficacy of our approach in terms of both performance prediction accuracy and knowledge estimation ability, when compared with existing student cognitive models.

Is Cognitive Dissonance Actually a Thing? In 1934, an 8.0-magnitude earthquake hit eastern India, killing thousands and devastating several cities. Curiously, in areas that were spared the worst destruction, stories soon spread that an even bigger disaster was on its way. Leon Festinger, a young American psychologist at the University of Minnesota, read about these rumors in the early nineteen-fifties and was puzzled. Festinger didn't think people would voluntarily adopt anxiety-inducing ideas. Instead, he reasoned, the rumors could better be described as "anxiety justifying." Some had felt the earth shake and were overwhelmed with fear. When the outcome--they were spared--didn't match their emotions, they embraced predictions that affirmed their fright.

We tackle the challenges of synthesizing versatile, physically simulated human motions for full-body object manipulation. Unlike prior methods that are focused on detailed motion tracking, trajectory following, or teleoperation, our framework enables users to specify versatile high-level objectives such as target object poses or body poses. To achieve this, we introduce MaskedManipulator, a generative control policy distilled from a tracking controller trained on large-scale human motion capture data. This two-stage learning process allows the system to perform complex interaction behaviors, while providing intuitive user control over both character and object motions. MaskedManipulator produces goal-directed manipulation behaviors that expand the scope of interactive animation systems beyond task-specific solutions.

Explanatory Interactive Learning (XIL) is a powerful interactive learning framework designed to enable users to customize and correct AI models by interacting with their explanations. In a nutshell, XIL algorithms select a number of items on which an AI model made a decision (e.g. images and their tags) and present them to users, together with corresponding explanations (e.g. image regions that drive the model's decision). Then, users supply corrective feedback for the explanations, which the algorithm uses to improve the model. Despite showing promise in debugging tasks, recent studies have raised concerns that explanatory interaction may trigger order effects, a well-known cognitive bias in which the sequence of presented items influences users' trust and, critically, the quality of their feedback. We argue that these studies are not entirely conclusive, as the experimental designs and tasks employed differ substantially from common XIL use cases, complicating interpretation. To clarify the interplay between order effects and explanatory interaction, we ran two larger-scale user studies (n = 713 total) designed to mimic common XIL tasks. Specifically, we assessed order effects both within and between debugging sessions by manipulating the order in which correct and wrong explanations are presented to participants. Order effects had a limited, through significant impact on users' agreement with the model (i.e., a behavioral measure of their trust), and only when examined withing debugging sessions, not between them. The quality of users' feedback was generally satisfactory, with order effects exerting only a small and inconsistent influence in both experiments. Overall, our findings suggest that order effects do not pose a significant issue for the successful employment of XIL approaches. More broadly, our work contributes to the ongoing efforts for understanding human factors in AI.

The effectiveness of human-robot interaction often hinges on the ability to cultivate engagement - a dynamic process of cognitive involvement that supports meaningful exchanges. Many existing definitions and models of engagement are either too vague or lack the ability to generalize across different contexts. We introduce IM HERE, a novel framework that models engagement effectively in human-human, human-robot, and robot-robot interactions. By employing an effort-based description of bilateral relationships between entities, we provide an accurate breakdown of relationship patterns, simplifying them to focus placement and four key states. This framework captures mutual relationships, group behaviors, and actions conforming to social norms, translating them into specific directives for autonomous systems. By integrating both subjective perceptions and objective states, the model precisely identifies and describes miscommunication. The primary objective of this paper is to automate the analysis, modeling, and description of social behavior, and to determine how autonomous systems can behave in accordance with social norms for full social integration while simultaneously pursuing their own social goals.

Human cognitive biases in software engineering can lead to costly errors. While general-purpose AI (GPAI) systems may help mitigate these biases due to their non-human nature, their training on human-generated data raises a critical question: Do GPAI systems themselves exhibit cognitive biases? To investigate this, we present the first dynamic benchmarking framework to evaluate data-induced cognitive biases in GPAI within software engineering workflows. Starting with a seed set of 16 hand-crafted realistic tasks, each featuring one of 8 cognitive biases (e.g., anchoring, framing) and corresponding unbiased variants, we test whether bias-inducing linguistic cues unrelated to task logic can lead GPAI systems from correct to incorrect conclusions. To scale the benchmark and ensure realism, we develop an on-demand augmentation pipeline relying on GPAI systems to generate task variants that preserve bias-inducing cues while varying surface details. This pipeline ensures correctness (88-99% on average, according to human evaluation), promotes diversity, and controls reasoning complexity by leveraging Prolog-based reasoning. We evaluate leading GPAI systems (GPT, LLaMA, DeepSeek) and find a consistent tendency to rely on shallow linguistic heuristics over more complex reasoning. All systems exhibit bias sensitivity (6-35%), which increases with task complexity (up to 49%) and highlights risks in AI-driven software engineering.

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.

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.