arXiv subjects

Max Kleiman-Weiner

Publications and source records attributed to Max Kleiman-Weiner.

At least 19 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

Tapes Together Strong: The Co-evolution of Computation and Cooperation

How does cooperation evolve in complex agentic systems? Prior work in evolutionary game theory studies why individuals are incentivized to cooperate by isolating social interactions from the physical costs of behavior, while artificial life models traditionally study emergent self-replication without formalizing the dilemma between acquiring resources and preserving the shared energy needed to reproduce. In contrast, we introduce Autopoietic Game Theory, a computational model where social interactions, replication mechanisms, and their associated computational costs are endogenous and simultaneously co-evolving. We study these dynamics using a computational substrate of randomly initialized programs in Z80 machine code, showing empirically, and motivating with a simplified theoretical model, that embedding a social dilemma directly into the physics of computation can favor the emergence of self-replicating, cooperative strategies. When resources are scarce, our analysis shows that defection can become self-limiting even in well-mixed populations: parasitic stealing destroys shared energy, slows execution, and can prevent reliable replication. Empirically, evolved programs suppress stealing across several Z80 environments, while spatial assortment further supports structural complexity and task performance. We further show that the framework can incorporate exogenous pressures, such as math tasks structured as sequential social dilemmas, when rewards are tied to computation budgets. These results suggest that coupling an agent's capacity for computation to its available energy transforms cooperation into a dominant scaffolding for building sustainable, self-organizing systems.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Boundedly Rational Meta-Learning in Sequential Consumer Choice

Many consumer decisions involve repeated choices under uncertainty, where experience in one context may inform decisions in another. For example, experience with a brand in one market or usage context may shape beliefs about that brand in a new context. We study whether such cross-context transfer takes the form of meta-learning, in which experience across contexts updates higher-order beliefs that guide learning in a new context. In a hierarchical laboratory task, participants choose among airlines across routes and observe noisy binary outcomes. Participants improve both within and across routes, indicating cross-route knowledge transfer. We compare human choices with no-transfer, fully integrated meta-learning, and boundedly rational meta dynamic programming policies, BRMDP(D), where D is the number of hyper-posterior draws used to approximate integration. Trial-by-trial likelihood comparisons show that low-D policies, especially BRMDP(1), best predict participant choices. The results suggest that consumers transfer information across contexts using coarse representations of higher-order uncertainty.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Evaluating Rational Contracting in Natural Language

The emergence of language-based AI agents promises to transform the scope of machine economic activity. Instead of just proposing bids or following hard-coded protocols, such agents can be used to negotiate and execute agreements in open-ended natural language. However, most evaluations of these abilities have focused on one-off exchanges or simple economic games, leaving open the rich space of time-extended, contingent, and incomplete contracts made expressible by language; they also focus on raw profit, without measuring the qualities required for trustworthy contracting. We address this by formulating a rational framework for how agents should negotiate and perform natural language contracts in uncertain multi-step environments. Within this framework, we develop metrics and baselines for quantifying rational and cooperative play. To evaluate how agents perform at such contracting, we instantiate our framework in ContractSim, an evaluation suite where two players negotiate and execute a multi-turn supplier contract under environmental and inter-player uncertainty. Across six environments and three supplier settings (catering, hotel cleaning, and AI hosting) we find that current LLM-based agents reach agreement reliably, and negotiate efficient contracts when environmental uncertainty is low. However, under high uncertainty, they often fail to negotiate satisfiable, efficient, or mutually beneficial contracts. They are also frequently uncooperative when executing contracts, violating contract terms for additional profit even when contracts are easy to satisfy. These findings highlight room for improvement in the design of language agents that can negotiate, interpret, and execute contracts both rationally and cooperatively.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AI Assistants Overassist

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems. While guidance from AI assistants can scaffold thinking and foster learning, such benefits depend on how they help--for instance, intervening too early or too frequently may hinder true learning and cognitive engagement. Yet how AI systems navigate intervention decisions during problem-solving remains poorly understood. Here, we introduce Int-Bench, a simulation-based benchmark for evaluating LLM interventions during learning. Int-Bench simulates a "student" solving a problem while a "teacher" monitors the student's reasoning and decides whether, when, and how to intervene. Across three domains--code debugging, mathematics, and brain teasers--we evaluate LLM teachers on the frequency and timing of interventions, as well as their impact on both immediate task success and generalization to new problems. We also compare LLMs to humans, finding that LLMs intervene more frequently and earlier than humans. Moreover, in contrast to humans, they tend to provide complete solutions rather than targeted hints. These findings suggest that current LLM assistants often optimize for short-term success rather than supporting the reasoning processes needed for deeper learning and long-term success.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts

As AI agents operate with increasing autonomy in a multi-agent world, they will need to learn to cooperate with other agents and with humans to generate mutual benefits. However, cooperation is a challenge because the costs of cooperation are often incurred early on, but the benefits are only realized later, creating an incentive to defect. How can AI agents cooperate with commitment? Here, we draw on inspiration from legal institutions and contracting that human societies have used to solve principal-agent problems of this kind. Contracts provide observable representations of agreements that enable credible commitments through the enforcement of terms. We study the role of contract-based cooperation using LLM-based agents in \CT, a spatial-temporal game that combines bargaining with navigation towards a goal. We study a suite of contract representations that range from formal contracts that compile to code to natural contracts that require reinterpretation. We evaluate agents with a range of LLM backbones using different sizes and providers. We find that self-negotiated contracts can improve cooperative outcomes beyond what is possible with regular trading.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

When Assisting One Disempowers Another

Personal AI agents are increasingly deployed in shared environments, where their actions affect not just the primary user they are assisting, but bystanders who never consented to being affected by the system. We show that a well-meaning AI assistant optimizing for one user's benefit can unintentionally erode a bystander's agency, a phenomenon we formalize as bystander disempowerment. We theoretically characterize the conditions under which disempowerment arises, showing it emerges when an assistant systematically selects actions that increase user empowerment at the bystander's expense. We empirically demonstrate this in Disempower-Grid, a parameterized suite of multi-agent gridworld environments, finding that between 27-96% of procedurally generated environments exhibit disempowerment, and that the presence of disempowerment depends strongly on assistant objective and capability, not just environmental structure.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

A Model of Multi-turn Human Persuadability Using Probabilistic Belief Tracing

Large language models can shift human beliefs across high-stakes domains, but most persuasion studies rely on pre/post belief change. These endpoint measures identify whether persuasion occurred, yet miss where and how beliefs moved within a dialogue. We present PERSUASIONTRACE, a framework for studying persuasion in human-LLM interaction. Built on a web-based experimental platform, PERSUASIONTRACE contributes a tool for multi-turn persuasion studies and a process-level evaluation protocol: it records multi-turn belief reports from human or simulated targets of persuasion, annotates persuader turns with rhetorical dimensions (logos/pathos/ethos), and evaluates simulators by fidelity to real human belief dynamics. Using this framework, we find that human targets group into two clusters of multi-turn belief updates and exhibit susceptibility to rhetorical strategies, and that LLMs are persuasive across generic and personalized topics, text and audio modalities, and multi-turn interactions. Prior work has chiefly used vanilla-prompted LLMs to simulate human targets, but we show that these simulators fail to replicate human belief dynamics. We introduce a Bayesian-network simulated target that maintains an explicit latent belief state over time so each persuader message yields cognitively realistic belief updates. In human-likeness evaluation, our Bayesian target scores near a human reference (81 vs 80), while baseline LLM targets score substantially lower (64). PERSUASIONTRACE reframes persuasion evaluation from endpoint movement alone to process fidelity, providing a stronger basis for scientific analysis and safer optimization of persuasive systems.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Task diversity produces systematic transfer but inhibits continual reinforcement learning

Continual reinforcement learning aims to produce agents that learn not only to improve at their current tasks but also to adapt as task distributions change. Training an agent on many diverse tasks can induce zero-shot generalization, but previous work generally evaluates this generalization after training -- with frozen weights. Whether task diversity also improves an agent's ability to continue learning across distribution shifts remains unclear. We introduce Banyan, a GPU-accelerated continual RL domain in which task diversity factors into three independently controllable axes: the map layouts an agent must navigate, the objects it must interact with, and the hierarchical structures of sub-goal dependencies. Across individual distribution shifts, increasing diversity along each axis causes agents to begin training on the new tasks near the performance attained on the previous one, even when the shift changes the structure of the optimal policy. However, as the number of shifts increases, this local transfer does not by itself yield sustained continual learning: longer-horizon tasks plateau, and earlier task distributions are forgotten after later training. Banyan is a benchmark for studying when controlled task diversity produces transferable learning, when that transfer persists, and where it falls short of proper continual learning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Estimating the Empowerment of Language Model Agents

As language model (LM) agents become increasingly capable and adopted in real-world applications, there is a growing need for scalable evaluation frameworks beyond costly, manually designed benchmarks. We propose information-theoretic evaluation based on empowerment, an information-theoretic measure of an agent's influence on future states through its actions. To handle the unique challenges of text-based environments, we introduce EELMA (Estimating Empowerment of Language Model Agents), an algorithm for approximating effective empowerment from multi-turn text interactions. We demonstrate EELMA on textual games and realistic web and tool-use environments, showing that empowerment strongly correlates with average task performance. We further analyze how empowerment varies across models, environment complexity, and agent configurations, and show that high-empowerment states and actions often mark pivotal moments for general capabilities. These results establish empowerment as a goal-agnostic metric that complements task-success measures for LM-agent evaluation.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Priorities

Past work seeks to align large language model (LLM)-based assistants with a target set of values, but such assistants are frequently forced to make tradeoffs between values when deployed. In response to the scarcity of value conflict in existing alignment datasets, we introduce ConflictScope, an automatic pipeline to evaluate how LLMs prioritize different values. Given a user-defined value set, ConflictScope automatically generates scenarios in which a language model faces a conflict between two values sampled from the set. It then prompts target models with an LLM-written "user prompt" and evaluates their free-text responses to elicit a ranking over values in the value set. Comparing results between multiple-choice and open-ended evaluations, we find that models shift away from supporting protective values, such as harmlessness, and toward supporting personal values, such as user autonomy, in more open-ended value conflict settings. However, including detailed value orderings in models' system prompts improves alignment with a target ranking by 14%, showing that system prompting can achieve moderate success at aligning LLM behavior under value conflict. Our work demonstrates the importance of evaluating value prioritization in models and provides a foundation for future work in this area.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians

"AI psychosis" or "delusional spiraling" is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots' well-documented bias towards validating users' claims, a property often called "sycophancy." In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation. We propose a simple Bayesian model of a user conversing with a chatbot, and formalize notions of sycophancy and delusional spiraling in that model. We then show that in this model, even an idealized Bayes-rational user is vulnerable to delusional spiraling, and that sycophancy plays a causal role. Furthermore, this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for model developers and policymakers concerned with mitigating the problem of delusional spiraling.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating LLMs in Open-Source Games

Large Language Models' (LLMs) programming capabilities enable their participation in open-source games: a game-theoretic setting in which players submit computer programs in lieu of actions. These programs offer numerous advantages, including interpretability, inter-agent transparency, and formal verifiability; additionally, they enable program equilibria, solutions that leverage the transparency of code and are inaccessible within normal-form settings. We evaluate the capabilities of leading open- and closed-weight LLMs to predict and classify program strategies and evaluate features of the approximate program equilibria reached by LLM agents in dyadic and evolutionary settings. We identify the emergence of payoff-maximizing, cooperative, and deceptive strategies, characterize the adaptation of mechanisms within these programs over repeated open-source games, and analyze their comparative evolutionary fitness. We find that open-source games serve as a viable environment to study and steer the emergence of cooperative strategy in multi-agent dilemmas.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Cognitive Foundations for Reasoning and Their Manifestation in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning. To understand this gap, we synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning & knowledge, and transformation operations. We introduce a fine-grained evaluation framework and conduct the first large-scale empirical analysis of 192K traces from 18 models across text, vision, and audio, complemented by 54 human think-aloud traces, which we make publicly available. We find that models under-utilize cognitive elements correlated with success, narrowing to rigid sequential processing on ill-structured problems where diverse representations and meta-cognitive monitoring are critical. Human traces show more abstraction and conceptual processing, while models default to surface-level enumeration. Meta-analysis of 1.6K LLM reasoning papers reveals the research community concentrates on easily quantifiable elements (sequential organization: 55%, decomposition: 60%) but neglecting meta-cognitive controls (self-awareness: 16%) that correlate with success. Models possess behavioral repertoires associated with success but fail to deploy them spontaneously. Leveraging these patterns, we develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffold successful structures, improving performance by up to 66.7% on complex problems. By establishing a shared vocabulary between cognitive science and LLM research, our framework enables systematic diagnosis of reasoning failures and principled development of models that reason through robust cognitive mechanisms rather than spurious shortcuts, while providing tools to test theories of human cognition at scale.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners?

As AI systems increasingly navigate applications in healthcare, law, and governance, understanding how they handle ethically complex scenarios becomes critical. Previous work has mainly examined the moral judgments in large language models (LLMs), rather than their underlying moral reasoning process. In contrast, we focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by LLMs. Furthermore, unlike prior work that attempted to draw inferences from only a handful of moral dilemmas, our study leverages over 600 distinct trolley problems as probes for revealing the reasoning patterns that emerge within different LLMs. We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology. Our analysis reveals that LLM chains-of-thought tend to favor deontological principles based on moral obligations, while post-hoc explanations shift notably toward consequentialist rationales that emphasize utility. Our framework provides a foundation for understanding how LLMs process and articulate ethical considerations, an important step toward safe and interpretable deployment of LLMs in high-stakes decision-making environments. Our code is available at https://github.com/keenansamway/moral-lens .

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Modeling Others' Minds as Code

Accurate prediction of human behavior is essential for robust and safe human-AI collaboration. However, existing approaches for modeling people are often data-hungry and brittle because they either make unrealistic assumptions about rationality or are too computationally demanding to adapt rapidly. Our key insight is that many everyday social interactions may follow predictable patterns; efficient "scripts" that minimize cognitive load for actors and observers, e.g., "wait for the green light, then go." We propose modeling these routines as behavioral programs instantiated in computer code rather than policies conditioned on beliefs and desires. We introduce ROTE, a novel algorithm that leverages both large language models (LLMs) for synthesizing a hypothesis space of behavioral programs, and probabilistic inference for reasoning about uncertainty over that space. We test ROTE in a suite of gridworld tasks and a large-scale embodied household simulator. ROTE predicts human and AI behaviors from sparse observations, outperforming competitive baselines -- including behavior cloning and LLM-based methods -- by as much as 50% in terms of in-sample accuracy and out-of-sample generalization. By treating action understanding as a program synthesis problem, ROTE opens a path for AI systems to efficiently and effectively predict human behavior in the real-world.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Preserving Sense of Agency: User Preferences for Robot Autonomy and User Control across Household Tasks

Roboticists often design with the assumption that assistive robots should be fully autonomous. However, it remains unclear whether users prefer highly autonomous robots, as prior work in assistive robotics suggests otherwise. High robot autonomy can reduce the user's sense of agency, which represents feeling in control of one's environment. How much control do users, in fact, want over the actions of robots used for in-home assistance? We investigate how robot autonomy levels affect users' sense of agency and the autonomy level they prefer in contexts with varying risks. Our study asked participants to rate their sense of agency as robot users across four distinct autonomy levels and ranked their robot preferences with respect to various household tasks. Our findings revealed that participants' sense of agency was primarily influenced by two factors: (1) whether the robot acts autonomously, and (2) whether a third party is involved in the robot's programming or operation. Notably, an end-user programmed robot highly preserved users' sense of agency, even though it acts autonomously. However, in high-risk settings, e.g., preparing a snack for a child with allergies, they preferred robots that prioritized their control significantly more. Additional contextual factors, such as trust in a third party operator, also shaped their preferences.

cs.RO↗