Payam Piray

Payam Piray

Adaptive decision-making in biological and artificial intelligence requires balancing the exploitation of known outcomes with the exploration of uncertain alternatives. Although prior work suggests that uncertainty generally promotes exploration, it has typically treated distinct sources of environmental uncertainty as equivalent. We consider environments with latent reward states that drift over time (volatility) and are observed through noisy outcomes (stochasticity). Both increase posterior uncertainty, yet we show they drive optimal exploration in opposite directions: volatility enhances it, stochasticity suppresses it. We establish this asymmetry formally by extending the Gittins index framework to Gaussian state-space bandits with latent dynamics. We further derive Cause-Aware Uncertainty-Sensitive Exploration (CAUSE), a closed-form exploration bonus obtained via control-as-inference that inherits the same monotonicities. CAUSE outperforms standard exploration strategies in environments with heterogeneous noise structure, and also improves on a Gittins-per-arm policy whose rested-bandit optimality does not transfer to restless settings. Learning and exploration are governed by the same noise-inference asymmetry, and the framework predicts that pathological noise inference produces \emph{reversed} rather than merely impaired exploration, with implications for computational accounts of psychiatric conditions.

Alireza S. Ziabari, Nona Ghazizadeh, Zhivar Sourati et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive reasoning abilities, yet their reliance on structured step-by-step processing reveals a critical limitation. In contrast, human cognition fluidly adapts between intuitive, heuristic (System 1) and analytical, deliberative (System 2) reasoning depending on the context. This difference between human cognitive flexibility and LLMs' reliance on a single reasoning style raises a critical question: while human fast heuristic reasoning evolved for its efficiency and adaptability, is a uniform reasoning approach truly optimal for LLMs, or does its inflexibility make them brittle and unreliable when faced with tasks demanding more agile, intuitive responses? To answer these questions, we explicitly align LLMs to these reasoning styles by curating a dataset with valid System 1 and System 2 answers, and evaluate their performance across reasoning benchmarks. Our results reveal an accuracy-efficiency trade-off: System 2-aligned models excel in arithmetic and symbolic reasoning, while System 1-aligned models perform better in commonsense reasoning tasks. To analyze the reasoning spectrum, we interpolated between the two extremes by varying the proportion of alignment data, which resulted in a monotonic change in accuracy. A mechanistic analysis of model responses shows that System 1 models employ more definitive outputs, whereas System 2 models demonstrate greater uncertainty. Building on these findings, we further combine System 1- and System 2-aligned models based on the entropy of their generations, without additional training, and obtain a dynamic model that outperforms across nearly all benchmarks. This work challenges the assumption that step-by-step reasoning is always optimal and highlights the need for adapting reasoning strategies based on task demands.