arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Marcel Binz.
Artificial Intelligence is starting to automate scientific discovery, raising the prospect of an automated science of the mind. We chart this field around four challenges: representing experiments, generating synthetic behavior, synthesizing models, and closing the loop to discover psychological theories.
Hierarchical data is ubiquitous in the empirical sciences and is most commonly analyzed with generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs). Bayesian inference for GLMMs yields calibrated uncertainty but requires MCMC; the No-U-Turn Sampler (NUTS) is the gold standard but is slow and must restart from scratch for every new dataset, model and prior. We introduce metabeta, a pretrained neural network for prior-amortized in-context Bayesian inference over GLMMs. Unlike previous neural posterior estimators that fix the prior at training time, metabeta accepts prior families and hyperparameters as inputs at test time, enabling zero-shot generalization. Two set transformers and conditional normalizing flows mirror the posterior's two-level structure (global parameters shared across groups, local parameters per group). The model is trained on millions of realistic simulated datasets spanning continuous, binary, and count outcomes. By default, the flow posterior is refined by Independence Metropolis-Hastings against the unnormalized posterior, so its correctness rests on the sampler rather than the network; this yields tuning-free inference two to three orders of magnitude faster than NUTS. Alternatively, the flow can warm-start NUTS, giving nearly identical inference with substantially increased speed and stability. On controlled benchmarks with ground-truth parameters, metabeta matches NUTS in parameter recovery, calibration and out-of-sample prediction. On out-of-distribution real datasets, its posteriors closely match those of NUTS across all parameter types, and they remain faithful under misspecified likelihoods and priors, out-of-distribution predictors, collinear designs, and data-poor regimes. The model is open-source and open-weights and thus immediately deployable.
The structure of human visual representations underpins our capacity for adaptive behaviour. While pretrained neural networks model human visual representations with unprecedented success, a large discrepancy remains. We propose one reason: these networks optimise a single fixed objective, whereas human representations must support open-ended tasks. We hypothesise this flexibility arises from meta-learning (learning to learn), a pressure shaping representations to acquire new tasks from few observations. To test this, we train a sequence model, without any supervision from human data, across thousands of semantically rich tasks mapping images to high-level concepts. Compared to their pretrained base encoders, meta-learned representations better predict human similarity judgements, semantic rule learning, and high-level visual cortex. Behavioural gains depend on disentangled, high-level task distributions, while brain alignment is driven primarily by the learning-to-learn pressure. Our results suggest the flexibility of human visual representations reflects the functional demand to learn new semantic relationships on the fly.
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.
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.
Hierarchical data with multiple observations per group is ubiquitous in empirical sciences and is often analyzed using mixed-effects regression. In such models, Bayesian inference gives an estimate of uncertainty but is analytically intractable and requires costly approximation using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods. Neural posterior estimation shifts the bulk of computation from inference time to pre-training time, amortizing over simulated datasets with known ground truth targets. We propose metabeta, a neural network model for Bayesian mixed-effects regression. Using simulated and real data, we show that it reaches stable and comparable performance to MCMC-based parameter estimation at a fraction of the usually required time, enabling new use cases for Bayesian mixed-effects modeling.
We introduce automated scientific minimization of regret (ASMR) -- a framework for automated computational cognitive science. Building on the principles of scientific regret minimization, ASMR leverages Centaur -- a recently proposed foundation model of human cognition -- to identify gaps in an interpretable cognitive model. These gaps are then addressed through automated revisions generated by a language-based reasoning model. We demonstrate the utility of this approach in a multi-attribute decision-making task, showing that ASMR discovers cognitive models that predict human behavior at noise ceiling while retaining interpretability. Taken together, our results highlight the potential of ASMR to automate core components of the cognitive modeling pipeline.
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.
Humans represent scenes and objects in rich feature spaces, carrying information that allows us to generalise about category memberships and abstract functions with few examples. What determines whether a neural network model generalises like a human? We tested how well the representations of $86$ pretrained neural network models mapped to human learning trajectories across two tasks where humans had to learn continuous relationships and categories of natural images. In these tasks, both human participants and neural networks successfully identified the relevant stimulus features within a few trials, demonstrating effective generalisation. We found that while training dataset size was a core determinant of alignment with human choices, contrastive training with multi-modal data (text and imagery) was a common feature of currently publicly available models that predicted human generalisation. Intrinsic dimensionality of representations had different effects on alignment for different model types. Lastly, we tested three sets of human-aligned representations and found no consistent improvements in predictive accuracy compared to the baselines. In conclusion, pretrained neural networks can serve to extract representations for cognitive models, as they appear to capture some fundamental aspects of cognition that are transferable across tasks. Both our paradigms and modelling approach offer a novel way to quantify alignment between neural networks and humans and extend cognitive science into more naturalistic domains.
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.
In-context learning, the ability to adapt based on a few examples in the input prompt, is a ubiquitous feature of large language models (LLMs). However, as LLMs' in-context learning abilities continue to improve, understanding this phenomenon mechanistically becomes increasingly important. In particular, it is not well-understood how LLMs learn to solve specific classes of problems, such as reinforcement learning (RL) problems, in-context. Through three different tasks, we first show that Llama $3$ $70$B can solve simple RL problems in-context. We then analyze the residual stream of Llama using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs) and find representations that closely match temporal difference (TD) errors. Notably, these representations emerge despite the model only being trained to predict the next token. We verify that these representations are indeed causally involved in the computation of TD errors and $Q$-values by performing carefully designed interventions on them. Taken together, our work establishes a methodology for studying and manipulating in-context learning with SAEs, paving the way for a more mechanistic understanding.
Large language models (LLMs) show increasingly advanced emergent capabilities and are being incorporated across various societal domains. Understanding their behavior and reasoning abilities therefore holds significant importance. We argue that a fruitful direction for research is engaging LLMs in behavioral experiments inspired by psychology that have traditionally been aimed at understanding human cognition and behavior. In this article, we highlight and summarize theoretical perspectives, experimental paradigms, and computational analysis techniques that this approach brings to the table. It paves the way for a "machine psychology" for generative artificial intelligence (AI) that goes beyond performance benchmarks and focuses instead on computational insights that move us toward a better understanding and discovery of emergent abilities and behavioral patterns in LLMs. We review existing work taking this approach, synthesize best practices, and highlight promising future directions. We also highlight the important caveats of applying methodologies designed for understanding humans to machines. We posit that leveraging tools from experimental psychology to study AI will become increasingly valuable as models evolve to be more powerful, opaque, multi-modal, and integrated into complex real-world settings.
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.
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.
We study the in-context learning dynamics of large language models (LLMs) using three instrumental learning tasks adapted from cognitive psychology. We find that LLMs update their beliefs in an asymmetric manner and learn more from better-than-expected outcomes than from worse-than-expected ones. Furthermore, we show that this effect reverses when learning about counterfactual feedback and disappears when no agency is implied. We corroborate these findings by investigating idealized in-context learning agents derived through meta-reinforcement learning, where we observe similar patterns. Taken together, our results contribute to our understanding of how in-context learning works by highlighting that the framing of a problem significantly influences how learning occurs, a phenomenon also observed in human cognition.
Large language models (LLMs) are being increasingly incorporated into scientific workflows. However, we have yet to fully grasp the implications of this integration. How should the advent of large language models affect the practice of science? For this opinion piece, we have invited four diverse groups of scientists to reflect on this query, sharing their perspectives and engaging in debate. Schulz et al. make the argument that working with LLMs is not fundamentally different from working with human collaborators, while Bender et al. argue that LLMs are often misused and over-hyped, and that their limitations warrant a focus on more specialized, easily interpretable tools. Marelli et al. emphasize the importance of transparent attribution and responsible use of LLMs. Finally, Botvinick and Gershman advocate that humans should retain responsibility for determining the scientific roadmap. To facilitate the discussion, the four perspectives are complemented with a response from each group. By putting these different perspectives in conversation, we aim to bring attention to important considerations within the academic community regarding the adoption of LLMs and their impact on both current and future scientific practices.
As children grow older, they develop an intuitive understanding of the physical processes around them. Their physical understanding develops in stages, moving along developmental trajectories which have been mapped out extensively in previous empirical research. Here, we investigate how the learning trajectories of deep generative neural networks compare to children's developmental trajectories using physical understanding as a testbed. We outline an approach that allows us to examine two distinct hypotheses of human development - stochastic optimization and complexity increase. We find that while our models are able to accurately predict a number of physical processes, their learning trajectories under both hypotheses do not follow the developmental trajectories of children.
Large language models are powerful systems that excel at many tasks, ranging from translation to mathematical reasoning. Yet, at the same time, these models often show unhuman-like characteristics. In the present paper, we address this gap and ask whether large language models can be turned into cognitive models. We find that -- after finetuning them on data from psychological experiments -- these models offer accurate representations of human behavior, even outperforming traditional cognitive models in two decision-making domains. In addition, we show that their representations contain the information necessary to model behavior on the level of individual subjects. Finally, we demonstrate that finetuning on multiple tasks enables large language models to predict human behavior in a previously unseen task. Taken together, these results suggest that large, pre-trained models can be adapted to become generalist cognitive models, thereby opening up new research directions that could transform cognitive psychology and the behavioral sciences as a whole.