Alexander Aushev, Aini Putkonen, Gregoire Clarte et al.
The problem of model selection with a limited number of experimental trials has received considerable attention in cognitive science, where the role of experiments is to discriminate between theories expressed as computational models. Research on this subject has mostly been restricted to optimal experiment design with analytically tractable models. However, cognitive models of increasing complexity, with intractable likelihoods, are becoming more commonplace. In this paper, we propose BOSMOS: an approach to experimental design that can select between computational models without tractable likelihoods. It does so in a data-efficient manner, by sequentially and adaptively generating informative experiments. In contrast to previous approaches, we introduce a novel simulator-based utility objective for design selection, and a new approximation of the model likelihood for model selection. In simulated experiments, we demonstrate that the proposed BOSMOS technique can accurately select models in up to 2 orders of magnitude less time than existing LFI alternatives for three cognitive science tasks: memory retention, sequential signal detection and risky choice.
Suyog Chandramouli, George Kachergis, Akshay Jagadish
Cognitive science often evaluates theories through narrow paradigms and local model comparisons, limiting the integration of evidence across tasks and realizations. We introduce an automated adversarial collaboration framework for adjudicating among competing theories even when the candidate models and experiments must be discovered during the adjudication process. The system combines LLM-based theory agents, program synthesis, and information-theoretic experimental design in a closed loop. In a simulation study spanning three classic categorization theories, the framework recovered the ground-truth theory across noise settings with weaker reliability in the hardest settings. Together, the framework and findings provide a concrete proof of concept for closed-loop, in-silico theory adjudication in cognitive science.
Akshay K. Jagadish, Younes Strittmatter, Nori Jacoby et al.
Across the sciences, autonomous systems are increasingly being used in closed-loop discovery, proposing new theories and designing and running experiments to test them. This approach is yet to be applied in the field of cognitive science, where the central bottleneck is theory-building: the creative step of turning the accumulated failures of existing models into better ones. Theory generation has remained manual even as data collection, modeling, and experiment design have been automated. We present the Automated Cognitive Scientist (AutoCog), a fully autonomous agentic-AI system that closes this loop. Large-language-model agents advocate competing theories, each expressed as an executable cognitive model, design experiments that best discriminate them, collect behavioral data from participants recruited online, score theories against collected data based on their generative performance, diagnose why they fail, and synthesize a better successor. Repeating this cycle allows them to search the space of theories, models, and experiments. In the domain of decision-making, AutoCog recovered known decision-making strategies from simulated behavior, including unconventional ones, showing that its discoveries are ultimately driven by the data rather than strictly bound by the priors of the underlying language models. When run with human participants, it produced theories that outperformed the established theories it was seeded with and generalized to held-out studies in two different experimental settings. It also surfaced a novel theory of multi-cue decision-making in which choices show diminishing sensitivity to feature values. The distinctive predictions of this theory were confirmed in a preregistered study with new participants. AutoCog demonstrates how an automated discovery system can be used to turn cognitive theory-building into an explicit, executable, and cumulative science.
Laila Melkas, Rafael Savvides, Suyog Chandramouli et al.
Causal structure discovery (CSD) models are making inroads into several domains, including Earth system sciences. Their widespread adaptation is however hampered by the fact that the resulting models often do not take into account the domain knowledge of the experts and that it is often necessary to modify the resulting models iteratively. We present a workflow that is required to take this knowledge into account and to apply CSD algorithms in Earth system sciences. At the same time, we describe open research questions that still need to be addressed. We present a way to interactively modify the outputs of the CSD algorithms and argue that the user interaction can be modelled as a greedy finding of the local maximum-a-posteriori solution of the likelihood function, which is composed of the likelihood of the causal model and the prior distribution representing the knowledge of the expert user. We use a real-world data set for examples constructed in collaboration with our co-authors, who are the domain area experts. We show that finding maximally usable causal models in the Earth system sciences or other similar domains is a difficult task which contains many interesting open research questions. We argue that taking the domain knowledge into account has a substantial effect on the final causal models discovered.