Haoyang Shang

HaoYang Shang, Xuan Liu, Zi Liang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit a notable performance ceiling on complex, multi-faceted tasks. As practitioners increasingly rely on heavy context engineering -- curating intricate instructions, tool schemas, and multi-turn histories -- the processing demands often exceed the LLM's effective attention budget, leading to context rot. Drawing an analogy to Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) in cognitive science, we propose that this bottleneck is functionally analogous to the bounded working memory of the human mind. Rather than relying on heuristic prompt engineering, we use CLT as a principled design lens for LLM system design. To operationalize this insight, we introduce CoThinker, an instantiation of a CLT-driven multi-agent framework. CoThinker operationalizes CLT principles by distributing intrinsic cognitive load through agent specialization and managing transactional load via structured communication and a collective working memory. We empirically evaluate CoThinker on complex problem-solving tasks and fabricated high cognitive load scenarios. Our results are consistent with a CLT-informed account of multi-agent coordination: gains concentrate on reasoning-heavy tasks where cognitive load is high, while coordination overhead dominates on low-intrinsic-load tasks such as instruction-following -- a boundary predicted by the cognitive-load-profile view. Our analysis reveals characteristic interaction patterns that cast insights from collective cognition and load management into a principled approach to agent system design.

Xuan Liu, HaoYang Shang, Zizhang Liu et al.

We propose using validated behavioral hypotheses as a lens for evaluating human-likeness in LLM-based agents. Our key idea is simple: If an agent is human-like, a population of such agents should reach the same inferential conclusion as the human population when run through the same experiment. Decades of social science have produced many such validated findings, each anchored to concrete experimental protocols and robustly established through independent replication. This yields an evaluation that is objective, decomposable, and scalable. We operationalize this lens through HumanStudy-Bench, an open platform that turns published human-subject studies into reusable simulation environments and administers the evaluation to configurable agents. It scores agent-human alignment on two metrics: the Probability Alignment Score (PAS) for inferential agreement and the Effect Consistency Score (ECS) for effect-size agreement. We curated an initial suite of 12 studies whose hypotheses are robustly established through independent replication, and evaluated 10 models under 4 agent designs. Results show that agent responses polarize between full replication and complete failure; agent design influences alignment more than model scale, but its effect is non-monotonic.

Zi Liang, Zhiyao Wu, Haoyang Shang et al.

Decision boundary, the subspace of inputs where a machine learning model assigns equal classification probabilities to two classes, is pivotal in revealing core model properties and interpreting behaviors. While analyzing the decision boundary of large language models (LLMs) has raised increasing attention recently, constructing it for mainstream LLMs remains computationally infeasible due to the enormous vocabulary-sequence sizes and the auto-regressive nature of LLMs. To address this issue, in this paper we propose Decision Potential Surface (DPS), a new notion for analyzing LLM decision boundary. DPS is defined on the confidences in distinguishing different sampling sequences for each input, which naturally captures the potential of decision boundary. We prove that the zero-height isohypse in DPS is equivalent to the decision boundary of an LLM, with enclosed regions representing decision regions. By leveraging DPS, for the first time in the literature, we propose an approximate decision boundary construction algorithm, namely $K$-DPS, which only requires K-finite times of sequence sampling to approximate an LLM's decision boundary with negligible error. We theoretically derive the upper bounds for the absolute error, expected error, and the error concentration between K-DPS and the ideal DPS, demonstrating that such errors can be trade-off with sampling times. Our results are empirically validated by extensive experiments across various LLMs and corpora.

Xuan Liu, Haoyang Shang, Haojian Jin

This paper introduces CoBRA, a novel toolkit for systematically specifying agent behavior in LLM-based social simulation. We found that conventional approaches that specify agent behaviors through implicit natural language descriptions cannot yield consistent behaviors across models, and the produced agent behaviors do not capture the nuances of the descriptions. In contrast, CoBRA presents a new approach to program agents' cognitive biases explicitly, by grounding agents' expected behaviors using classic social science experiments. CoBRA has two components: (1) Cognitive Bias Index that measures the cognitive bias of a social agent, by quantifying the agent's reactions in a set of validated classical social science experiments; (2) Behavioral Regulation Engine that aligns the agent's behavior to demonstrate controlled cognitive bias. We evaluated CoBRA as an HCI toolkit through demonstration and technical benchmarks. Our results suggest that CoBRA can precisely program the cognitive bias demonstrated in a social agent in a model-agnostic manner.