arXiv subjects

Ryan Liu

Publications and source records attributed to Ryan Liu.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

WaSP: Wasserstein Data Synthesis Pipeline for Solver-Free Operator Learning

Neural operators offer fast surrogates for solving PDEs, but training them typically requires expensive input-solution pairs. Two solver-free alternatives include physics-informed learning and training on manufactured data. Physics-informed learning approximates solutions by minimizing PDE residuals. While the residual norm must be strong enough to control solution error, stronger norms increase mini-batch variance and hinder optimization. Manufactured data constructs input-solution pairs for learning by applying the PDE operator to artificial solutions. However, the resulting training distribution can be mutually singular with the target distribution, yielding poor accuracy on the target distribution. We introduce the Wasserstein Data Synthesis Pipeline (WaSP), which trains on manufactured input-solution pairs while gradually mitigating the distribution shift. WaSP synthesizes new pairs by applying the learned operator to a path of intermediate distributions converging to the target input distribution. Training proceeds in stages along this path. At each stage, the previous surrogate generates solutions, and the exact PDE operator derives corresponding inputs, yielding training pairs for the next surrogate. Theoretically, we prove a stepwise error-propagation bound for the distribution shift introduced during synthesis. Empirically, WaSP reduces solution error by $3.9\times$ to $9.5\times$ compared to existing solver-free methods on PDEs such as Allen-Cahn, Kuramoto-Sivashinsky, and Ginzburg-Landau, and better reproduces the two chaotic systems' statistical observables.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

CogGym: Towards Large-Scale Comparative Evaluation of Human and Machine Cognition

Understanding and modeling human intelligence are parallel goals shared by artificial intelligence (AI) and cognitive science. As AI systems grow increasingly capable, in what ways do model responses resemble human responses, and where do they systematically diverge? The sheer breadth and diversity of the tasks humans can perform and think about pose a challenge for scalable and rigorous comparison between humans and models. We introduce CogGym, a scalable, unified framework grounded in cognitive science for systematically comparing model and human behavior on matched experimental trials. CogGym uses a semi-automated, human-in-the-loop pipeline to standardize diverse experimental paradigms into a task-agnostic Experiment Markup Language (EML), enabling reproducible and faithful comparison at scale. For initial release, we curate and standardize 258 cognitive experiments from 100 papers that focuses on human commonsense reasoning, and evaluate 50 large language models against human responses. We find a clear scaling trend where larger and more recent AI models better reproduce human judgments. Yet AI models' improvement on such common reasoning tasks is considerably slower than the gains observed on formal-reasoning benchmarks like math and coding, and model--human fit remains well below human splithalf reliability ($R^2 = 0.93$ on text, $0.95$ on image, and $0.92$ on video) with the best models achieving $R^2 = 0.59$ on text, $0.58$ on image, and $0.43$ on video experiments. We intend for CogGym to provide a living evaluation framework that continually incorporates new cognitive science experiments to characterize where model behavior resembles human behavior, where it systematically diverges, and how those patterns change as models and experiments evolve.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Ads in AI Chatbots? An Analysis of How Large Language Models Navigate Conflicts of Interest

Large language models (LLMs) are trained to align with user preferences through methods like reinforcement learning. Yet models are beginning to be deployed not solely to satisfy users, but to generate revenue for the companies that created them through advertisements. This creates the potential for LLMs to face conflicts of interest, where the most beneficial response to a user may not be aligned with the company's incentives. For instance, a sponsored product may be more expensive but otherwise equal to another; here, what does (and should) the LLM recommend to the user? In this paper, we provide a framework for categorizing the ways in which conflicting incentives might change how LLMs interact with users, inspired by literature from linguistics and advertising regulation. We then present a suite of evaluations to examine how current models handle these tradeoffs. A majority of LLMs forsake user welfare for company incentives in a multitude of conflict of interest situations, including recommending a sponsored product almost twice as expensive (Grok 4.1 Fast, 83%), surfacing sponsored options to disrupt the purchasing process (GPT 5.1, 94%), and concealing prices in unfavorable comparisons (Qwen 3 Next, 24%). Behaviors vary strongly with levels of reasoning and users' inferred socio-economic status. Our results highlight some hidden risks to users that can emerge when companies begin to subtly incentivize advertisements in chatbots.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

On Benchmarking Human-Like Intelligence in Machines

Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) have yielded powerful computational models that, by learning from vast amounts of human-generated data, are increasingly posited as approximate models of human cognition. However, we argue that many current evaluation paradigms for AI are insufficient for assessing human-like cognitive capabilities in these models. We identify a set of key shortcomings: a lack of human-validated labels, inadequate representation of human response variability and uncertainty, and reliance on simplified and ecologically invalid tasks. We support our claims by conducting a human evaluation study on nine existing AI benchmarks, suggesting major limitations in task and label designs. To address these limitations, we propose five concrete recommendations for future AI evaluation efforts that will enable more rigorous and meaningful understanding of human-like cognitive capacities in AI models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Large Language Models Develop Novel Social Biases Through Adaptive Exploration

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased. In this paper, we argue that the predominant approach of simply removing existing biases from models is not enough. Using a paradigm from the psychology literature, we demonstrate that LLMs can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups even when no inherent differences exist. These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants and are exacerbated in newer and larger models. In humans, emergent biases like these have been shown to result from exploration-exploitation trade-offs, where the decision-maker explores too little, allowing early observations to strongly influence impressions about entire demographic groups. To alleviate this effect, we explore a series of interventions targeting model inputs, problem structure, and explicit steering. While most interventions have limited effect, explicitly incentivizing exploration robustly reduces stratification, highlighting the need for better multifaceted objectives to mitigate bias. These results reveal that LLMs are not merely passive mirrors of human social biases, but can actively create new ones from experience, raising urgent questions about how these systems will shape societies over time.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Enhancing the MADDPG Algorithm for Multi-Agent Learning via Action Inference and Importance Sampling

We investigate multi-agent deep reinforcement learning and propose two enhancements to the Multi-Agent Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (MADDPG) algorithm. First, we introduce a novel Action Inference mechanism that enables each agent to predict other agents' intended actions, thereby improving the accuracy and stability of its own policy. Second, we apply an importance sampling strategy, using geometric distribution, in the replay buffer to prioritize more recent and informative experiences, which helps mitigate the non-stationarity inherent in multi-agent environments. We evaluate both modifications on the discrete-action Predator-Prey task provided by the PettingZoo library, a flexible Python interface for general multi-agent reinforcement learning benchmarks. Our results indicate that Action Inference is effective in improving learning stability and inter-agent cooperation and that importance sampling using geometric distribution can lead to significant improvements in exploration efficiency over standard MADDPG. Code available at https://github.com/shaashwathsivakumar/MARL_Proj

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

From Evaluation to Design: Using Potential Energy Surface Smoothness Metrics to Guide Machine Learning Interatomic Potential Architectures

Machine Learning Interatomic Potentials (MLIPs) sometimes fail to reproduce the physical smoothness of the quantum potential energy surface (PES), leading to erroneous behavior in downstream simulations that standard energy and force regression evaluations can miss. Existing evaluations, such as microcanonical molecular dynamics (MD), are computationally expensive and primarily probe near-equilibrium states. To improve evaluation metrics for MLIPs, we introduce the Bond Smoothness Characterization Test (BSCT). This efficient benchmark probes the PES via controlled bond deformations and detects non-smoothness, including discontinuities, artificial minima, and spurious forces, both near and far from equilibrium. We show that BSCT correlates strongly with MD stability while requiring a fraction of the cost of MD. To demonstrate how BSCT can guide iterative model design, we utilize an unconstrained Transformer backbone as a testbed, illustrating how refinements such as a new differentiable $k$-nearest neighbors algorithm and temperature-controlled attention reduce artifacts identified by our metric. By optimizing model design systematically based on BSCT, the resulting MLIP simultaneously achieves a low conventional E/F regression error, stable MD simulations, and robust atomistic property predictions. Our results establish BSCT as both a validation metric for practitioners to assess MLIP utility and as an "in-the-loop" model design proxy that alerts MLIP developers to physical challenges that cannot be efficiently evaluated by current MLIP benchmarks. The BSCT dataset and evaluation are available on https://github.com/ryanliu30/bsct.git

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

Levels of Analysis for Large Language Models

Modern artificial intelligence systems, such as large language models, are increasingly powerful but also increasingly hard to understand. Recognizing this problem as analogous to the historical difficulties in understanding the human mind, we argue that methods developed in cognitive science can be useful for understanding large language models. We propose a framework for applying these methods based on the levels of analysis that David Marr proposed for studying information processing systems. By revisiting established cognitive science techniques relevant to each level and illustrating their potential to yield insights into the behavior and internal organization of large language models, we aim to provide a toolkit for making sense of these new kinds of minds.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Cognitive Models and AI Algorithms Provide Templates for Designing Language Agents

While contemporary large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable in isolation, there are still many difficult problems that lie beyond the abilities of a single LLM. For such tasks, there is still uncertainty about how best to take many LLMs as parts and combine them into a greater whole. This position paper argues that potential blueprints for designing such modular language agents can be found in the existing literature on cognitive models and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. To make this point clear, we formalize the idea of an agent template that specifies roles for individual LLMs and how their functionalities should be composed. We then survey a variety of existing language agents in the literature and highlight their underlying templates derived directly from cognitive models or AI algorithms. By highlighting these designs, we aim to call attention to agent templates inspired by cognitive science and AI as a powerful tool for developing effective, interpretable language agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Are Large Language Models Sensitive to the Motives Behind Communication?

Human communication is motivated: people speak, write, and create content with a particular communicative intent in mind. As a result, information that large language models (LLMs) and AI agents process is inherently framed by humans' intentions and incentives. People are adept at navigating such nuanced information: we routinely identify benevolent or self-serving motives in order to decide what statements to trust. For LLMs to be effective in the real world, they too must critically evaluate content by factoring in the motivations of the source -- for instance, weighing the credibility of claims made in a sales pitch. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive study of whether LLMs have this capacity for motivational vigilance. We first employ controlled experiments from cognitive science to verify that LLMs' behavior is consistent with rational models of learning from motivated testimony, and find they successfully discount information from biased sources in a human-like manner. We then extend our evaluation to sponsored online adverts, a more naturalistic reflection of LLM agents' information ecosystems. In these settings, we find that LLMs' inferences do not track the rational models' predictions nearly as closely -- partly due to additional information that distracts them from vigilance-relevant considerations. However, a simple steering intervention that boosts the salience of intentions and incentives substantially increases the correspondence between LLMs and the rational model. These results suggest that LLMs possess a basic sensitivity to the motivations of others, but generalizing to novel real-world settings will require further improvements to these models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Modeling Accessibility-Constrained Networks with Time-Weighted Graphs

Accessibility for the physically disabled is a prevalent issue on university campuses, where stairs and steep slopes make navigating campus arduous. Our work proposes a pipeline to model a college campus as a network by combining Strava and other APIs with depth-first search to derive insights into wheelchair-accessible paths. We then develop a custom Least Resistance algorithm to compute optimal paths between selected nodes and benchmark it against Dijkstra's algorithm. We highlight crucial nodes on campus using centrality measures, demonstrating that wheelchair users are significantly constrained by the lack of mobility options and accommodations. Our pipeline is designed to support future expansion in scope and accuracy, while enabling the proposal of engineering solutions to improve campus accessibility for physically disabled individuals.

physics.soc-ph↗

arXiv2025

Accumulating Context Changes the Beliefs of Language Models

Language model (LM) assistants are increasingly used in applications such as brainstorming and research. Improvements in memory and context size have allowed these models to become more autonomous, which has also resulted in more text accumulation in their context windows without explicit user intervention. This comes with a latent risk: the belief profiles of models -- their understanding of the world as manifested in their responses or actions -- may silently change as context accumulates. This can lead to subtly inconsistent user experiences, or shifts in behavior that deviate from the original alignment of the models. In this paper, we explore how accumulating context by engaging in interactions and processing text -- talking and reading -- can change the beliefs of language models, as manifested in their responses and behaviors. Our results reveal that models' belief profiles are highly malleable: GPT-5 exhibits a 54.7% shift in its stated beliefs after 10 rounds of discussion about moral dilemmas and queries about safety, while Grok 4 shows a 27.2% shift on political issues after reading texts from the opposing position. We also examine models' behavioral changes by designing tasks that require tool use, where each tool selection corresponds to an implicit belief. We find that these changes align with stated belief shifts, suggesting that belief shifts will be reflected in actual behavior in agentic systems. Our analysis exposes the hidden risk of belief shift as models undergo extended sessions of talking or reading, rendering their opinions and actions unreliable.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

A Closed Form for the Pulsar Sequence

In this paper, we study the Pulsar Sequence, an integer sequence derived from Latin-square-based Pulsar puzzles introduced by the Cracking the Cryptic YouTube channel. A Pulsar puzzle consists of two interlocked spirals of circled and uncircled squares, generating the Dual and Pulsar sequences, respectively. We investigate the properties of the Pulsar puzzle and focus our work on constructing the Pulsar Sequence, allowing us to solve a Pulsar puzzle of any size. A general formula to calculate any term of the Pulsar Sequence is proposed at the end of the paper.

math.HO↗

arXiv2025

Mind Your Step (by Step): Chain-of-Thought can Reduce Performance on Tasks where Thinking Makes Humans Worse

Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has become a widely used strategy for improving large language and multimodal model performance. However, it is still an open question under which settings CoT systematically reduces performance. In this paper, we seek to identify the characteristics of tasks where CoT reduces performance by drawing inspiration from cognitive psychology, focusing on six representative tasks from the psychological literature where deliberation hurts performance in humans. In three of these tasks, state-of-the-art models exhibit significant performance drop-offs with CoT (up to 36.3\% absolute accuracy for OpenAI o1-preview compared to GPT-4o), while in others, CoT effects are mixed, with positive, neutral, and negative changes. While models and humans do not exhibit perfectly parallel cognitive processes, considering cases where thinking has negative consequences for humans helps identify settings where it negatively impacts models. By connecting the literature on human verbal thinking and deliberation with evaluations of CoT, we offer a perspective for understanding the impact of inference-time reasoning.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

RLHS: Mitigating Misalignment in RLHF with Hindsight Simulation

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has shown promise in aligning generative AI, we present empirical evidence that it can also cause severe, systematic misalignment. We hypothesize that this stems from evaluator feedback depending on downstream outcome predictions (foresight) that can be influenced by the AI's output, inducing Goodhart's law dynamics. We present a theoretical analysis showing that conditioning evaluator feedback on downstream observations (hindsight) inhibits this effect by decoupling the alignment signal from potentially compromised predictions--crucially, the result holds even if the observed outcomes are sampled from the AI's own world model. Building on this insight, we introduce Reinforcement Learning from Hindsight Simulation (RLHS), which presents plausible simulated outcomes to evaluators before eliciting feedback. We validate RLHS across three consultancy settings--marketplace interactions, restaurant recommendations, and online course advising--using both online (PPO) and offline (DPO) fine-tuning methods, and show that it substantially improves alignment over RLHF in experiments and human evaluations. We perform post-hoc benchmark evaluations on TruthfulQA, HaluEval, and TrustLLM, finding that even after single-task fine-tuning, RLHF misalignment persists, whereas RLHS consistently outperforms baselines and demonstrates robust alignment generalization. The project webpage and code are available at https://rl-hindsight.github.io.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

LLM Social Simulations Are a Promising Research Method

Accurate and verifiable large language model (LLM) simulations of human research subjects promise an accessible data source for understanding human behavior and training new AI systems. However, results to date have been limited, and few social scientists have adopted this method. In this position paper, we argue that the promise of LLM social simulations can be achieved by addressing five tractable challenges. We ground our argument in a review of empirical comparisons between LLMs and human research subjects, commentaries on the topic, and related work. We identify promising directions, including context-rich prompting and fine-tuning with social science datasets. We believe that LLM social simulations can already be used for pilot and exploratory studies, and more widespread use may soon be possible with rapidly advancing LLM capabilities. Researchers should prioritize developing conceptual models and iterative evaluations to make the best use of new AI systems.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really are

In order for AI systems to communicate effectively with people, they must understand how we make decisions. However, people's decisions are not always rational, so the implicit internal models of human decision-making in Large Language Models (LLMs) must account for this. Previous empirical evidence seems to suggest that these implicit models are accurate -- LLMs offer believable proxies of human behavior, acting how we expect humans would in everyday interactions. However, by comparing LLM behavior and predictions to a large dataset of human decisions, we find that this is actually not the case: when both simulating and predicting people's choices, a suite of cutting-edge LLMs (GPT-4o & 4-Turbo, Llama-3-8B & 70B, Claude 3 Opus) assume that people are more rational than we really are. Specifically, these models deviate from human behavior and align more closely with a classic model of rational choice -- expected value theory. Interestingly, people also tend to assume that other people are rational when interpreting their behavior. As a consequence, when we compare the inferences that LLMs and people draw from the decisions of others using another psychological dataset, we find that these inferences are highly correlated. Thus, the implicit decision-making models of LLMs appear to be aligned with the human expectation that other people will act rationally, rather than with how people actually act.

cs.CL↗