Arvind Kumar

Zinan Liu, Haoran Li, Jingyi Lu et al.

Autonomous AI is no longer a hard-to-reach concept, it enables the agents to move beyond executing tasks to independently addressing complex problems, adapting to change while handling the uncertainty of the environment. However, what makes the agents truly autonomous? It is agentic reasoning, that is crucial for foundation models to develop symbolic logic, statistical correlations, or large-scale pattern recognition to process information, draw inferences, and make decisions. However, it remains unclear why and how existing agentic reasoning approaches work, in comparison to biological reasoning, which instead is deeply rooted in neural mechanisms involving hierarchical cognition, multimodal integration, and dynamic interactions. In this work, we propose a novel neuroscience-inspired framework for agentic reasoning. Grounded in three neuroscience-based definitions and supported by mathematical and biological foundations, we propose a unified framework modeling reasoning from perception to action, encompassing four core types, perceptual, dimensional, logical, and interactive, inspired by distinct functional roles observed in the human brain. We apply this framework to systematically classify and analyze existing AI reasoning methods, evaluating their theoretical foundations, computational designs, and practical limitations. We also explore its implications for building more generalizable, cognitively aligned agents in physical and virtual environments. Finally, building on our framework, we outline future directions and propose new neural-inspired reasoning methods, analogous to chain-of-thought prompting. By bridging cognitive neuroscience and AI, this work offers a theoretical foundation and practical roadmap for advancing agentic reasoning in intelligent systems. The associated project can be found at: https://github.com/BioRAILab/Awesome-Neuroscience-Agent-Reasoning .

Jian Liu, Xiongtao Shi, Thai Duy Nguyen et al.

The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) has shifted from static, data-driven models to dynamic systems capable of perceiving and interacting with real-world environments. Despite advancements in pattern recognition and symbolic reasoning, current AI systems, such as large language models, remain disembodied, unable to physically engage with the world. This limitation has driven the rise of embodied AI, where autonomous agents, such as humanoid robots, must navigate and manipulate unstructured environments with human-like adaptability. At the core of this challenge lies the concept of Neural Brain, a central intelligence system designed to drive embodied agents with human-like adaptability. A Neural Brain must seamlessly integrate multimodal sensing and perception with cognitive capabilities. Achieving this also requires an adaptive memory system and energy-efficient hardware-software co-design, enabling real-time action in dynamic environments. This paper introduces a unified framework for the Neural Brain of embodied agents, addressing two fundamental challenges: (1) defining the core components of Neural Brain and (2) bridging the gap between static AI models and the dynamic adaptability required for real-world deployment. To this end, we propose a biologically inspired architecture that integrates multimodal active sensing, perception-cognition-action function, neuroplasticity-based memory storage and updating, and neuromorphic hardware/software optimization. Furthermore, we also review the latest research on embodied agents across these four aspects and analyze the gap between current AI systems and human intelligence. By synthesizing insights from neuroscience, we outline a roadmap towards the development of generalizable, autonomous agents capable of human-level intelligence in real-world scenarios.

Pascal Helson, Arvind Kumar

Despite the diversity of brain data acquired and advanced AI-based algorithms to analyze them, brain features are rarely used in clinics for diagnosis and prognosis. Here we argue that the field continues to rely on cohort comparisons to seek biomarkers, despite the well-established degeneracy of brain features. Using a thought experiment, we show that more data and more powerful algorithms will not be sufficient to identify biomarkers of brain diseases. We argue that instead of comparing patient versus healthy controls using single data type, we should use multimodal (e.g. brain activity, neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, brain imaging) and longitudinal brain data to guide the grouping before defining multidimensional biomarkers for brain diseases.