Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Julian Jara-Ettinger

Publications and source records attributed to Julian Jara-Ettinger.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2026

CogGym: Towards Large-Scale Comparative Evaluation of Human and Machine Cognition

Understanding and modeling human intelligence are parallel goals shared by artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science. As AI systems grow increasingly capable, in what ways do model responses resemble human responses, and where do they systematically diverge? The sheer breadth and diversity of the tasks humans can perform and think about pose a challenge for scalable and rigorous comparison between humans and models. We introduce CogGym, a scalable, unified framework grounded in cognitive science for systematically comparing model and human behavior on matched experimental trials. CogGym uses a semi-automated, human-in-the-loop pipeline to standardize diverse experimental paradigms into a task-agnostic Experiment Markup Language (EML), enabling reproducible and faithful comparison at scale. For initial release, we curate and standardize 258 cognitive experiments from 100 papers that focuses on human commonsense reasoning, and evaluate 50 large language models against human responses. We find a clear scaling trend where larger and more recent AI models better reproduce human judgments. Yet AI models' improvement on such common reasoning tasks is considerably slower than the gains observed on formal-reasoning benchmarks like math and coding, and model--human fit remains well below human splithalf reliability ($R^2 = 0.93$ on text, $0.95$ on image, and $0.92$ on video) with the best models achieving $R^2 = 0.59$ on text, $0.58$ on image, and $0.43$ on video experiments. We intend for CogGym to provide a living evaluation framework that continually incorporates new cognitive science experiments to characterize where model behavior resembles human behavior, where it systematically diverges, and how those patterns change as models and experiments evolve.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

GPT-4o Lacks Core Features of Theory of Mind

Do Large Language Models (LLMs) possess a Theory of Mind (ToM)? Research into this question has focused on evaluating LLMs against benchmarks and found success across a range of social tasks. However, these evaluations do not test for the actual representations posited by ToM: namely, a causal model of mental states and behavior. Here, we use a cognitively-grounded definition of ToM to develop and test a new evaluation framework. Specifically, our approach probes whether LLMs have a coherent, domain-general, and consistent model of how mental states cause behavior -- regardless of whether that model matches a human-like ToM. We find that even though LLMs succeed in approximating human judgments in a simple ToM paradigm, they fail at a logically equivalent task and exhibit low consistency between their action predictions and corresponding mental state inferences. As such, these findings suggest that the social proficiency exhibited by LLMs is not the result of a domain-general or consistent ToM.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2025

Full-Stack Alignment: Co-Aligning AI and Institutions with Thick Models of Value

Beneficial societal outcomes cannot be guaranteed by aligning individual AI systems with the intentions of their operators or users. Even an AI system that is perfectly aligned to the intentions of its operating organization can lead to bad outcomes if the goals of that organization are misaligned with those of other institutions and individuals. For this reason, we need full-stack alignment, the concurrent alignment of AI systems and the institutions that shape them with what people value. This can be done without imposing a particular vision of individual or collective flourishing. We argue that current approaches for representing values, such as utility functions, preference orderings, or unstructured text, struggle to address these and other issues effectively. They struggle to distinguish values from other signals, to support principled normative reasoning, and to model collective goods. We propose thick models of value will be needed. These structure the way values and norms are represented, enabling systems to distinguish enduring values from fleeting preferences, to model the social embedding of individual choices, and to reason normatively, applying values in new domains. We demonstrate this approach in five areas: AI value stewardship, normatively competent agents, win-win negotiation systems, meaning-preserving economic mechanisms, and democratic regulatory institutions.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2025

NeuroAI for AI Safety

As AI systems become increasingly powerful, the need for safe AI has become more pressing. Humans are an attractive model for AI safety: as the only known agents capable of general intelligence, they perform robustly even under conditions that deviate significantly from prior experiences, explore the world safely, understand pragmatics, and can cooperate to meet their intrinsic goals. Intelligence, when coupled with cooperation and safety mechanisms, can drive sustained progress and well-being. These properties are a function of the architecture of the brain and the learning algorithms it implements. Neuroscience may thus hold important keys to technical AI safety that are currently underexplored and underutilized. In this roadmap, we highlight and critically evaluate several paths toward AI safety inspired by neuroscience: emulating the brain's representations, information processing, and architecture; building robust sensory and motor systems from imitating brain data and bodies; fine-tuning AI systems on brain data; advancing interpretability using neuroscience methods; and scaling up cognitively-inspired architectures. We make several concrete recommendations for how neuroscience can positively impact AI safety.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2024

MetaCOG: A Hierarchical Probabilistic Model for Learning Meta-Cognitive Visual Representations

Humans have the capacity to question what we see and to recognize when our vision is unreliable (e.g., when we realize that we are experiencing a visual illusion). Inspired by this capacity, we present MetaCOG: a hierarchical probabilistic model that can be attached to a neural object detector to monitor its outputs and determine their reliability. MetaCOG achieves this by learning a probabilistic model of the object detector's performance via Bayesian inference -- i.e., a meta-cognitive representation of the network's propensity to hallucinate or miss different object categories. Given a set of video frames processed by an object detector, MetaCOG performs joint inference over the underlying 3D scene and the detector's performance, grounding inference on a basic assumption of object permanence. Paired with three neural object detectors, we show that MetaCOG accurately recovers each detector's performance parameters and improves the overall system's accuracy. We additionally show that MetaCOG is robust to varying levels of error in object detector outputs, showing proof-of-concept for a novel approach to the problem of detecting and correcting errors in vision systems when ground-truth is not available.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2020

Learning a metacognition for object perception

Beyond representing the external world, humans also represent their own cognitive processes. In the context of perception, this metacognition helps us identify unreliable percepts, such as when we recognize that we are seeing an illusion. Here we propose MetaGen, a model for the unsupervised learning of metacognition. In MetaGen, metacognition is expressed as a generative model of how a perceptual system produces noisy percepts. Using basic principles of how the world works (such as object permanence, part of infants' core knowledge), MetaGen jointly infers the objects in the world causing the percepts and a representation of its own perceptual system. MetaGen can then use this metacognition to infer which objects are actually present in the world. On simulated data, we find that MetaGen quickly learns a metacognition and improves overall accuracy, outperforming models that lack a metacognition.

cs.AI↗