The HUman-Grounded AGENT Benchmark is introduced, which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data.
Abstract
Simulating human reasoning in open-ended tasks has long been a central aspiration in AI and cognitive science. While large language models now approximate human responses at scale, they remain tuned to population-level consensus, often erasing the individuality of reasoning styles and belief trajectories. To advance the vision of more human-like reasoning in machines, we introduce HugAgent (HUman-Grounded AGENT Benchmark), which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions: (i) from averaged to individualized reasoning, (ii) from behavioral mimicry to cognitive alignment, and (iii) from vignette-based to open-ended data. The benchmark evaluates whether a model can predict a specific person's behavioral responses and the underlying reasoning dynamics in out-of-distribution scenarios, given partial evidence of their prior views. HugAgent combines structured questionnaires with semi-structured think-aloud interviews to collect ecologically valid belief states, belief updates, and reasoning traces from human participants. Our experiments reveal a clear asymmetry: models recover a person's belief state from their own context reasonably well, but struggle to predict belief updates under intervention. Cross-person and cross-domain controls trace this gap to associative matching within a topic rather than identity-consistent reasoning, suggesting that progress requires better-calibrated change detection, not simply more context. We scope the benchmark to self-reported belief reasoning in three policy domains: healthcare, surveillance, and zoning. The benchmark, along with its complete data collection pipeline and companion chatbot, is open-sourced as HugAgent (https://github.com/jajamoa/HugAgent) and TraceYourThinking (https://github.com/jajamoa/trace-your-thinking).
This work isolates abductive reasoning from deductive reasoning: unlike deductive tasks, its difficulty cannot be inferred from formal structure and offers no shortcuts a model could exploit to mimic effort without genuine search, providing firmer ground for empirical claims of shared effort.
This work proposes ParallelWorld, a multi-horizon test-time scaling framework for embodied reasoning that empowers agents to simulate and evaluate multi-step future trajectories in parallel before committing to an action.
Min Chen, Shengjun Zhang, Yu-Xin Li et al.· 0 citations
CogGym is introduced, a scalable, unified framework grounded in cognitive science for systematically comparing model and human behavior on matched experimental trials, and intends for CogGym to provide a living evaluation framework that continually incorporates new cognitive science experiments to characterize where mo...
Lance Ying, Jin-Zhou Wu, Y. Wang et al.· 0 citations
It is argued that chess provides a useful bridge between cognitive and computational perspectives on strategic reasoning, and identifies explicit planning, grounded and faithful explanation, metacognitive calibration, and human--AI complementarity as directions for future research.
UnifiedPlayers, a cooperative framework comprising a Planning Player that generates tasks, an Execution Player that produces multi-turn trajectories with Python tool calls, and an Evaluation Player that constructs executable verifiers, highlights cooperation among specialized players as a promising path toward self-enh...
It is argued that emergent reasoning in LLMs is a product of three factors: model size, prompting approach, and evaluation metric, and proposed implications for designing benchmarks and assessing capabilities are proposed.
N. Kuotsu· International Journal of Cre...· 0 citations