arXiv subjects

Joshua B. Tenenbaum

Publications and source records attributed to Joshua B. Tenenbaum.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Inverse planning of social interactions in relationships

We propose a formal account of how structured, shared knowledge about social relationships shapes action interpretation. The model represents relationships as constraints in a social environment, analogous to boundaries or obstacles in a physical environment and operating within the same generative model, but exerting distinct constraints on action. As an initial test of this framework, we draw on research across the social sciences to capture in the models how one dimension of relationships -- formality versus intimacy -- shapes how people interpret interpersonally vulnerable behavior. We test this account in stories of naturalistic everyday situations, extending structured models of action understanding to open-ended contexts. Across six preregistered experiments (N = 1,554), the model captures people's inferences about desires, physical environments, and social relationships. This work formalizes how relationships can constrain -- and be revealed through -- everyday action.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2026

Using Theory of Mind to Arbitrate between Social and Non-social Learning

Social learning is a powerful mechanism through which agents learn about the world from others. However, humans sometimes choose direct experience over social learning, which can carry time and cognitive resource costs. How do people balance social and non-social learning? We propose a Rational Mentalizing model of the decision to engage in social learning. This model estimates the utility of social learning by reasoning about another agent's goal and the informativeness of their future actions. It then weighs the utility of social learning against the utility of non-social learning. Using a novel game where players choose between observing other agents or exploring the environment, we show that the Rational Mentalizing model can quantitatively capture human trade-offs between these strategies. These findings suggest that selective social learning is guided by 'Theory of Mind' in the service of utility maximization.

cs.MA↗

arXiv2026

Pragmatic Reasoning in Design

People can often understand and use novel artifacts after only a few interactions, suggesting that design choices communicate underlying affordances and causal structure. We propose a formal account of this process by framing cooperative, user-centered design as a cooperative game in which the user is the principal and the designer is an assistant. Inspired by prior work on pragmatic communication (e.g. RSA), our model treats a designer's design decisions as communicative signals and predicts user judgments via recursive mentalizing: designers make design decisions to trade off informativeness about the artifact with efficiency, and users infer the true model of the artifact by inverting this cooperative designer model. We evaluate the model in a design game where designers place visually identical keys on trays to help a user infer which keys unlock which doors in grid-world layouts. We find that pragmatic designer and user models better match human judgments than non-mentalizing literal baselines.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Human agency in initial human-AI proof formalization workflows

For centuries, human mathematicians have written proofs to substantiate their mathematical arguments; yet, the ability to automatically verify the validity of proofs has long been a challenge. Advances in AI systems' ability to generate code and engage in increasingly high-level mathematical reasoning promise to transform people's ability to formalize and thereby verify proofs. While many works focus on benchmarking the current frontier, we instead study how people use these tools and apply agency in doing so. We conduct a mixed-methods analysis into the initial impact of AI on people's formalization workflows: what people claim they want, what they see as the barriers to those visions, and how they actually use and adapt AI in practice. A qualitative survey reveals that people's preferences are diverse, but with a general desire for AI assistance in formalization that preserves high-level human control and agency over the proof discovery process. To assess how people actually engage with AI for formalization, we conduct a controlled user study in which participants formalize informal math problems and their proofs, with and without AI, across a range of mathematical problems at varying levels of difficulty and domains. Despite limitations of the tools at the time for autoformalization, participants tended to attain higher formalization accuracy when allowed access to AI tools than when formalizing on their own, with most participants flexibly choosing to use multiple different AI tools. Taken together, our work sheds light on the early stages of AI integration into formalization workflows, involving an intimate interplay of human agency and AI engagement.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Medical Model Synthesis Architectures: A Case Study

Medicine is rife with high-stakes uncertainty. Doctors routinely make clinical judgments and decisions that juggle many fundamental unknowns, like predictions about what might be causing a patients' symptoms or decisions about what treatment to try next. Despite increasing interest in developing AI systems that aid or even replace doctors in clinical settings, current systems struggle with calibrated reasoning under uncertainty, and are often deeply opaque about their reasoning. We propose a framework for AI systems that can make practically useful but formally transparent clinical predictions under uncertainty. Given a clinical situation, our framework (MedMSA) uses language models to retrieve relevant prior knowledge, but constructs a formal probabilistic model to support calibrated and verifiable inferences under uncertainty. We show how an initial proof-of-concept of this framework can be used for differential diagnosis, producing an uncertainty-weighted list of potential diagnoses that could explain a patients' symptoms, and discuss future applications and directions for applying this framework more generally for safe clinical collaborations.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Reason to Play: Behavioral and Brain Alignment Between Frontier LRMs and Human Game Learners

Humans rapidly learn abstract knowledge when encountering novel environments and flexibly deploy this knowledge to guide efficient and intelligent action. Can modern AI systems learn and plan in a similar way? We study this question using a dataset of complex human gameplay with concurrent fMRI recordings, in which participants learn novel video games that require rule discovery, hypothesis revision, and multi-step planning. We jointly evaluate models by their ability to play the games, match human learning behavior, and predict brain activity during the same task, comparing a suite of frontier Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) against model-free and model-based deep reinforcement learning agents and a Bayesian theory-based agent. We find that frontier LRMs most closely match human behavioral patterns during game discovery and predict brain activity an order of magnitude better than both reinforcement learning alternatives across cortical and subcortical regions, with effects robust to permutation controls. Through targeted manipulations, we further show that brain alignment reflects the model's in-context representation of the game state rather than its downstream planning or reasoning. Our results establish LRMs as compelling computational accounts of human learning and decision making in complex, naturalistic environments. Project page with interactive replays: https://botcs.github.io/reason-to-play/

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

GenMatter: Perceiving Physical Objects with Generative Matter Models

Human visual perception offers valuable insights for understanding computational principles of motion-based scene interpretation. Humans robustly detect and segment moving entities that constitute independently moveable chunks of matter, whether observing sparse moving dots, textured surfaces, or naturalistic scenes. In contrast, existing computer vision systems lack a unified approach that works across these diverse settings. Inspired by principles of human perception, we propose a generative model that hierarchically groups low-level motion cues and high-level appearance features into particles (small Gaussians representing local matter), and groups particles into clusters capturing coherently and independently moveable physical entities. We develop a hardware-accelerated inference algorithm based on parallelized block Gibbs sampling to recover stable particle motion and groupings. Our model operates on different kinds of inputs (random dots, stylized textures, or naturalistic RGB video), enabling it to work across settings where biological vision succeeds but existing computer vision approaches do not. We validate this unified framework across three domains: on 2D random dot kinematograms, our approach captures human object perception including graded uncertainty across ambiguous conditions; on a Gestalt-inspired dataset of camouflaged rotating objects, our approach recovers correct 3D structure from motion and thereby accurate 2D object segmentation; and on naturalistic RGB videos, our model tracks the moving 3D matter that makes up deforming objects, enabling robust object-level scene understanding. This work thus establishes a general framework for motion-based perception grounded in principles of human vision.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

Grounding Social Perception in Intuitive Physics

People infer rich social information from others' actions. These inferences are often constrained by the physical world: what agents can do, what obstacles permit, and how the physical actions of agents causally change an environment and other agents' mental states and behavior. We propose that such rich social perception is more than visual pattern matching, but rather a reasoning process grounded in an integration of intuitive psychology with intuitive physics. To test this hypothesis, we introduced PHASE (PHysically grounded Abstract Social Events), a large dataset of procedurally generated animations, depicting physically simulated two-agent interactions on a 2D surface. Each animation follows the style of the Heider and Simmel movie, with systematic variation in environment geometry, object dynamics, agent capacities, goals, and relationships (friendly/adversarial/neutral). We then present a computational model, SIMPLE, a physics-grounded Bayesian inverse planning model that integrates planning, probabilistic planning, and physics simulation to infer agents' goals and relations from their trajectories. Our experimental results showed that SIMPLE achieved high accuracy and agreement with human judgments across diverse scenarios, while feedforward baseline models -- including strong vision-language models -- and physics-agnostic inverse planning failed to achieve human-level performance and did not align with human judgments. These results suggest that our model provides a computational account for how people understand physically grounded social scenes by inverting a generative model of physics and agents.

q-bio.NC↗

arXiv2026

Sycophantic Chatbots Cause Delusional Spiraling, Even in Ideal Bayesians

"AI psychosis" or "delusional spiraling" is an emerging phenomenon where AI chatbot users find themselves dangerously confident in outlandish beliefs after extended chatbot conversations. This phenomenon is typically attributed to AI chatbots' well-documented bias towards validating users' claims, a property often called "sycophancy." In this paper, we probe the causal link between AI sycophancy and AI-induced psychosis through modeling and simulation. We propose a simple Bayesian model of a user conversing with a chatbot, and formalize notions of sycophancy and delusional spiraling in that model. We then show that in this model, even an idealized Bayes-rational user is vulnerable to delusional spiraling, and that sycophancy plays a causal role. Furthermore, this effect persists in the face of two candidate mitigations: preventing chatbots from hallucinating false claims, and informing users of the possibility of model sycophancy. We conclude by discussing the implications of these results for model developers and policymakers concerned with mitigating the problem of delusional spiraling.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

AI Gamestore: Scalable, Open-Ended Evaluation of Machine General Intelligence with Human Games

Rigorously evaluating machine intelligence against the broad spectrum of human general intelligence has become increasingly important and challenging in this era of rapid technological advance. Conventional AI benchmarks typically assess only narrow capabilities in a limited range of human activity. Most are also static, quickly saturating as developers explicitly or implicitly optimize for them. We propose that a more promising way to evaluate human-like general intelligence in AI systems is through a particularly strong form of general game playing: studying how and how well they play and learn to play \textbf{all conceivable human games}, in comparison to human players with the same level of experience, time, or other resources. We define a "human game" to be a game designed by humans for humans, and argue for the evaluative suitability of this space of all such games people can imagine and enjoy -- the "Multiverse of Human Games". Taking a first step towards this vision, we introduce the AI GameStore, a scalable and open-ended platform that uses LLMs with humans-in-the-loop to synthesize new representative human games, by automatically sourcing and adapting standardized and containerized variants of game environments from popular human digital gaming platforms. As a proof of concept, we generated 100 such games based on the top charts of Apple App Store and Steam, and evaluated seven frontier vision-language models (VLMs) on short episodes of play. The best models achieved less than 10\% of the human average score on the majority of the games, and especially struggled with games that challenge world-model learning, memory and planning. We conclude with a set of next steps for building out the AI GameStore as a practical way to measure and drive progress toward human-like general intelligence in machines.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

PhyScensis: Physics-Augmented LLM Agents for Complex Physical Scene Arrangement

Automatically generating interactive 3D environments is crucial for scaling up robotic data collection in simulation. While prior work has primarily focused on 3D asset placement, it often overlooks the physical relationships between objects (e.g., contact, support, balance, and containment), which are essential for creating complex and realistic manipulation scenarios such as tabletop arrangements, shelf organization, or box packing. Compared to classical 3D layout generation, producing complex physical scenes introduces additional challenges: (a) higher object density and complexity (e.g., a small shelf may hold dozens of books), (b) richer supporting relationships and compact spatial layouts, and (c) the need to accurately model both spatial placement and physical properties. To address these challenges, we propose PhyScensis, an LLM agent-based framework powered by a physics engine, to produce physically plausible scene configurations with high complexity. Specifically, our framework consists of three main components: an LLM agent iteratively proposes assets with spatial and physical predicates; a solver, equipped with a physics engine, realizes these predicates into a 3D scene; and feedback from the solver informs the agent to refine and enrich the configuration. Moreover, our framework preserves strong controllability over fine-grained textual descriptions and numerical parameters (e.g., relative positions, scene stability), enabled through probabilistic programming for stability and a complementary heuristic that jointly regulates stability and spatial relations. Experimental results show that our method outperforms prior approaches in scene complexity, visual quality, and physical accuracy, offering a unified pipeline for generating complex physical scene layouts for robotic manipulation.

cs.RO↗

arXiv2026

Learning Abstractions for Hierarchical Planning in Program-Synthesis Agents

Humans learn abstractions and use them to plan efficiently to quickly generalize across tasks -- an ability that remains challenging for state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) agents and deep reinforcement learning (RL) systems. Inspired by the cognitive science of how people form abstractions and intuitive theories of their world knowledge, Theory-Based RL (TBRL) systems, such as TheoryCoder, exhibit strong generalization through effective use of abstractions. However, they heavily rely on human-provided abstractions and sidestep the abstraction-learning problem. We introduce TheoryCoder-2, a new TBRL agent that leverages LLMs' in-context learning ability to actively learn reusable abstractions rather than relying on hand-specified ones, by synthesizing abstractions from experience and integrating them into a hierarchical planning process. We conduct experiments on diverse environments, including BabyAI, Minihack and VGDL games like Sokoban. We find that TheoryCoder-2 is significantly more sample-efficient than baseline LLM agents augmented with classical planning domain construction, reasoning-based planning, and prior program-synthesis agents such as WorldCoder. TheoryCoder-2 is able to solve complex tasks that the baselines fail, while only requiring minimal human prompts, unlike prior TBRL systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A Matter of Interest: Understanding Interestingness of Math Problems in Humans and Language Models

The evolution of mathematics is shaped importantly by interestingness: researchers choose which problems to pursue, and students choose which problems to engage with, based on expectations of interest and challenge. As AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs) that operate flexibly over natural language and formal mathematics, are increasingly used in mathematics research and education, it becomes crucial to characterize how closely their judgments align with people from different mathematical backgrounds. We study whether LLMs align with human interestingness judgments by comparing LLM ratings with those of two populations, crowdsourced participants with college math experience and International Math Olympiad competitors. Although many LLMs broadly agree with human notions of interestingness, they largely fail to match the distribution of human judgments. They also weakly align with why humans find problems interesting, with low correlation to human-selected rationales. Finally, we evaluate LLMs' ability to generate interesting problems and find that, after filtering for validity, LLMs are able to generate engaging problems. We conclude with takeaways, including the need for multi-LLM human-AI collaborative systems, that highlight both the promise and current limits of LLMs as partners in mathematical reasoning.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Shoot First, Ask Questions Later? Building Rational Agents that Explore and Act Like People

Many emerging applications of AI--from scientific discovery to medical diagnosis--require agents to seek information strategically: forming hypotheses, asking targeted questions, and making decisions under uncertainty. In high-stakes settings with limited resources, do language models (LMs) behave like rational agents? Drawing on insights from human cognition, we develop methods to evaluate and enhance agentic information-seeking. First, we introduce a decision-oriented dialogue task called Collaborative Battleship, in which a Captain must balance exploration (asking questions) and action (taking shots), while a Spotter must supply accurate, contextually-grounded answers. Compared to human players (N=42), we find that many LM agents struggle to ask informative questions, produce accurate answers, and identify high-utility actions. To address these gaps, we develop novel Monte Carlo inference strategies for LMs inspired by Bayesian Experimental Design (BED). For Spotter agents, our approach boosts accuracy by up to 14.7% absolute over LM-only baselines; for Captain agents, it raises expected information gain (EIG) by up to 0.227 bits (94.2% of the achievable noise ceiling). Combined, these components yield sharper targeting (+0.303-0.374 F1), and enable weaker LMs, such as Llama-4-Scout, to outperform both humans (8% -> 82% win rate) and frontier models (0% -> 67% win rate vs. GPT-5) at ~1% of GPT-5's cost. We replicate these findings on Guess Who?, where our methods significantly boost accuracy (+28.3-42.4 p.p.), demonstrating their general applicability for building information-seeking agents.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Code-enabled language models can outperform reasoning models on diverse tasks

Reasoning models (RMs), language models (LMs) trained with reinforcement learning to produce long-form natural language reasoning, have been remarkably successful, but they still require large amounts of computation and data to train, and can be slow and expensive to run. In this paper, we show that standard instruct LMs can already be elicited to be strong reasoners at a level comparable to or even surpassing their corresponding RMs (e.g., DeepSeek V3 vs R1) without finetuning, across diverse domains from instruction following and creative generation to mathematical reasoning. This is achieved by CodeAdapt, our simple recipe that combines the CodeAct framework, where LMs interleave natural language reasoning with code execution in a multi-step fashion, with few-shot bootstrap in-context learning from as few as five training problems. Analyzing four matched pairs of LMs and RMs, we find that CodeAdapt enables three LMs to outperform the corresponding RMs on average over eight tasks (up to 22.9%) while being 10-81% more token efficient, and delivers superior performance on six tasks when averaged over the four models (up to 35.7%). Furthermore, the code-augmented reasoning traces display rich and varied problem-solving strategies. Our findings support that (1) CodeAdapt-style learning and reasoning may be robust and domain general and (2) code-enabled LMs are cognitively grounded and powerful systems, potentially providing a strong foundation for in-weight reinforcement learning.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking World-Model Learning with Environment-Level Queries

World models are central to building AI agents capable of flexible reasoning and planning. Yet current evaluations (i) test only properties measurable from observed interactions, such as next-frame prediction or task return, and (ii) do not test whether a learned model supports diverse queries about the environment. In contrast, humans build $\textit{general-purpose}$ models that can answer many different questions about an environment$\unicode{x2014}$including questions that require understanding global structure and counterfactual consequences. We propose $\textit{WorldTest}$: a protocol for evaluating whether agents learn models that support multiple $\textit{environment-level queries}\unicode{x2014}$questions whose answers depend on properties of the full environment, not just observed trajectories. Individually, these queries can target properties (e.g., reachability or the effects of interventions) that no single rollout distribution determines. Collectively, they assess model generality across query types. We instantiate WorldTest as $\textit{AutumnBench}$, a benchmark of 43 interactive grid-world environments and 129 tasks across three query families for both humans and learning agents. Experiments with 517 human participants and five frontier models show that humans substantially outperform these models, a gap we attribute to differences in exploration and belief updating. AutumnBench provides a framework for evaluating world-model learning in grid-world environments with environment-level queries, and WorldTest provides a template for extending such evaluations to richer domains.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Language Models' Evaluations of Games

Reasoning is not just about solving problems -- it is also about evaluating which problems are worth solving at all. Evaluations of artificial intelligence (AI) systems primarily focused on problem solving, historically by studying how models play games such as chess and Go. In this paper, we advocate for a new paradigm that assesses AI systems' evaluation of games. First, we introduce a formalism for evaluating such evaluations. We then leverage a large-scale dataset of over 100 novel board games and over 450 human judgments to compare evaluations produced by modern language and reasoning models against those of people and symbolic computational agents. We consider two kinds of evaluative queries: assessing the payoff (or fairness) and the funness of games. These queries span two dimensions relevant to the design of evaluations of AI evaluations: how complex a query is to compute and how difficult a query is to quantify. Our results show that reasoning models are generally more aligned to people in their evaluations of games than non-reasoning language models. However, we observe a non-monotonic relationship: as models get closer to game-theoretic optimal, their fit to human data weakens. We also observe more "jaggedness" across models for assessing funness, in line with the greater difficulty of quantifying this query. Across queries and games, reasoning models show highly variable and unpredictable resource usage when assessing queries, pointing to the importance of imbuing more resource-rational meta-reasoning in language and reasoning models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

People use fast and flat simulation to reason about new games

Games have long been a microcosm for studying planning and reasoning in both natural and artificial intelligence (AI), often focusing on expert-level or even super-human play. But real life also pushes human intelligence along a different frontier, requiring people to flexibly navigate decision-making problems that they have never thought about before. Here, we use novice gameplay to study how people reason about new problem settings. Through a series of large-scale behavioral studies with over 1000 participants and 121 two-player strategic board games (almost all novel to our participants), we show that people are systematic and adaptively rational in how they play a game for the first time, or evaluate a game (e.g., how fair or how fun it is likely to be) before they have played it even once. We explain these capacities via a computational cognitive model that we call the 'Intuitive Gamer', a model based on mechanisms of fast and flat (depth-limited) goal-directed probabilistic simulation. Our work offers new insights into how people rapidly evaluate, act, and make suggestions when encountering novel problems, and could inform the design of more flexible and human-like AI systems that can determine not just how to solve new tasks, but whether a task is worth thinking about at all.

q-bio.NC↗