Julian Coda-Forno

Julian Coda-Forno, Kristin Witte, Akshay K. Jagadish et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming research on machine learning while galvanizing public debates. Understanding not only when these models work well and succeed but also why they fail and misbehave is of great societal relevance. We propose to turn the lens of psychiatry, a framework used to describe and modify maladaptive behavior, to the outputs produced by these models. We focus on twelve established LLMs and subject them to a questionnaire commonly used in psychiatry. Our results show that six of the latest LLMs respond robustly to the anxiety questionnaire, producing comparable anxiety scores to humans. Moreover, the LLMs' responses can be predictably changed by using anxiety-inducing prompts. Anxiety-induction not only influences LLMs' scores on an anxiety questionnaire but also influences their behavior in a previously-established benchmark measuring biases such as racism and ageism. Importantly, greater anxiety-inducing text leads to stronger increases in biases, suggesting that how anxiously a prompt is communicated to large language models has a strong influence on their behavior in applied settings. These results demonstrate the usefulness of methods taken from psychiatry for studying the capable algorithms to which we increasingly delegate authority and autonomy.

Julian Coda-Forno, Marcel Binz, Jane X. Wang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the field of artificial intelligence. Yet, evaluating them comprehensively remains challenging. We argue that this is partly due to the predominant focus on performance metrics in most benchmarks. This paper introduces CogBench, a benchmark that includes ten behavioral metrics derived from seven cognitive psychology experiments. This novel approach offers a toolkit for phenotyping LLMs' behavior. We apply CogBench to 35 LLMs, yielding a rich and diverse dataset. We analyze this data using statistical multilevel modeling techniques, accounting for the nested dependencies among fine-tuned versions of specific LLMs. Our study highlights the crucial role of model size and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in improving performance and aligning with human behavior. Interestingly, we find that open-source models are less risk-prone than proprietary models and that fine-tuning on code does not necessarily enhance LLMs' behavior. Finally, we explore the effects of prompt-engineering techniques. We discover that chain-of-thought prompting improves probabilistic reasoning, while take-a-step-back prompting fosters model-based behaviors.

Julian Coda-Forno, Jane X. Wang, Arslan Chaudhry

The reversal curse describes a failure of autoregressive language models to retrieve a fact in reverse order (e.g., training on ``$A > B$'' but failing on ``$B < A$''). Recent work shows that objectives with bidirectional supervision (e.g., bidirectional attention or masking-based reconstruction for decoder-only models) can mitigate the reversal curse. We extend this evaluation to include a vanilla masked language modeling (MLM) objective and compare it to decoder-only masking-based training across four reversal benchmarks and then provide a minimal mechanistic study of \emph{how} these objectives succeed. We show that reversal accuracy requires training signal that explicitly makes the source entity a prediction target, and we find little evidence that success corresponds to a single direction-agnostic representation of a fact. Instead, representation distances and linear probes are consistent with storing forward and reverse directions as distinct entries, with different indexing geometry for MLM versus decoder-only masking-based training. Our results caution that objective-level ``fixes'' can improve reversal behavior without necessarily inducing the kind of latent generalization one might expect from a unified concept.

Marcel Binz, Elif Akata, Abdullah Almaatouq et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as surrogates for human participants, but it remains unclear which models best capture human behavior and why. To address this, we introduce Psych-201, a novel dataset that enables us to measure behavioral alignment at scale. We find that post-training -- the stage that turns base models into useful assistants -- consistently reduces alignment with human behavior across model families, sizes, and objectives. Moreover, this misalignment widens in newer model generations even as base models continue to improve. Finally, we find that persona-induction -- a popular technique for eliciting human-like behavior by conditioning models on participant-specific information -- does not improve predictions at the level of individuals. Taken together, our results suggest that the very processes that are currently employed to turn LLMs into useful assistants also make them less accurate models of human behavior.

Marcel Binz, Elif Akata, Matthias Bethge et al. · princeton

Establishing a unified theory of cognition has been a major goal of psychology. While there have been previous attempts to instantiate such theories by building computational models, we currently do not have one model that captures the human mind in its entirety. A first step in this direction is to create a model that can predict human behavior in a wide range of settings. Here we introduce Centaur, a computational model that can predict and simulate human behavior in any experiment expressible in natural language. We derived Centaur by finetuning a state-of-the-art language model on a novel, large-scale data set called Psych-101. Psych-101 reaches an unprecedented scale, covering trial-by-trial data from over 60,000 participants performing over 10,000,000 choices in 160 experiments. Centaur not only captures the behavior of held-out participants better than existing cognitive models, but also generalizes to new cover stories, structural task modifications, and entirely new domains. Furthermore, we find that the model's internal representations become more aligned with human neural activity after finetuning. Taken together, our results demonstrate that it is possible to discover computational models that capture human behavior across a wide range of domains. We believe that such models provide tremendous potential for guiding the development of cognitive theories and present a case study to demonstrate this.

Akshay K. Jagadish, Julian Coda-Forno, Mirko Thalmann et al.

Ecological rationality refers to the notion that humans are rational agents adapted to their environment. However, testing this theory remains challenging due to two reasons: the difficulty in defining what tasks are ecologically valid and building rational models for these tasks. In this work, we demonstrate that large language models can generate cognitive tasks, specifically category learning tasks, that match the statistics of real-world tasks, thereby addressing the first challenge. We tackle the second challenge by deriving rational agents adapted to these tasks using the framework of meta-learning, leading to a class of models called ecologically rational meta-learned inference (ERMI). ERMI quantitatively explains human data better than seven other cognitive models in two different experiments. It additionally matches human behavior on a qualitative level: (1) it finds the same tasks difficult that humans find difficult, (2) it becomes more reliant on an exemplar-based strategy for assigning categories with learning, and (3) it generalizes to unseen stimuli in a human-like way. Furthermore, we show that ERMI's ecologically valid priors allow it to achieve state-of-the-art performance on the OpenML-CC18 classification benchmark.

Akshay K. Jagadish, Mirko Thalmann, Julian Coda-Forno et al.

Human cognition is profoundly shaped by the environments in which it unfolds. Yet, it remains an open question whether learning and decision making can be explained as a principled adaptation to the statistical structure of real-world tasks. We introduce ecologically rational analysis, a computational framework that unifies the normative foundations of rational analysis with ecological grounding. Leveraging large language models to generate ecologically valid cognitive tasks at scale, and using meta-learning to derive rational models optimized for these environments, we develop a new class of learning algorithms: Ecologically Rational Meta-learned Inference (ERMI). ERMI internalizes the statistical regularities of naturalistic problem spaces and adapts flexibly to novel situations, without requiring hand-crafted heuristics or explicit parameter updates. We show that ERMI captures human behavior across 15 experiments spanning function learning, category learning, and decision making, outperforming several established cognitive models in trial-by-trial prediction. Our results suggest that much of human cognition may reflect adaptive alignment to the ecological structure of the problems we encounter in everyday life.

Julian Coda-Forno, Zhuokai Zhao, Qiang Zhang et al.

Should LLM reasoning live in a separate module, or within a single model's forward pass and representational space? We study dual-architecture latent reasoning, where a fluent Base exchanges latent messages with a Coprocessor, and test two hypotheses aimed at improving latent communication over Liu et al. (2024): (H1) increase channel capacity; (H2) learn communication via joint finetuning. Under matched latent-token budgets on GPT-2 and Qwen-3, H2 is consistently strongest while H1 yields modest gains. A unified soft-embedding baseline, a single model with the same forward pass and shared representations, using the same latent-token budget, nearly matches H2 and surpasses H1, suggesting current dual designs mostly add compute rather than qualitatively improving reasoning. Across GSM8K, ProsQA, and a Countdown stress test with increasing branching factor, scaling the latent-token budget beyond small values fails to improve robustness. Latent analyses show overlapping subspaces with limited specialization, consistent with weak reasoning gains. We conclude dual-model latent reasoning remains promising in principle, but likely requires objectives and communication mechanisms that explicitly shape latent spaces for algorithmic planning.

Elif Akata, Lion Schulz, Julian Coda-Forno et al.

LLMs are increasingly used in applications where they interact with humans and other agents. We propose to use behavioural game theory to study LLM's cooperation and coordination behaviour. We let different LLMs play finitely repeated $2\times2$ games with each other, with human-like strategies, and actual human players. Our results show that LLMs perform particularly well at self-interested games like the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma family. However, they behave sub-optimally in games that require coordination, like the Battle of the Sexes. We verify that these behavioural signatures are stable across robustness checks. We additionally show how GPT-4's behaviour can be modulated by providing additional information about its opponent and by using a "social chain-of-thought" (SCoT) strategy. This also leads to better scores and more successful coordination when interacting with human players. These results enrich our understanding of LLM's social behaviour and pave the way for a behavioural game theory for machines.

Julian Coda-Forno, Marcel Binz, Zeynep Akata et al.

Large language models have shown tremendous performance in a variety of tasks. In-context learning -- the ability to improve at a task after being provided with a number of demonstrations -- is seen as one of the main contributors to their success. In the present paper, we demonstrate that the in-context learning abilities of large language models can be recursively improved via in-context learning itself. We coin this phenomenon meta-in-context learning. Looking at two idealized domains, a one-dimensional regression task and a two-armed bandit task, we show that meta-in-context learning adaptively reshapes a large language model's priors over expected tasks. Furthermore, we find that meta-in-context learning modifies the in-context learning strategies of such models. Finally, we extend our approach to a benchmark of real-world regression problems where we observe competitive performance to traditional learning algorithms. Taken together, our work improves our understanding of in-context learning and paves the way toward adapting large language models to the environment they are applied purely through meta-in-context learning rather than traditional finetuning.