AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · May 117/10
🧠Researchers developed a method to extract and analyze search trees from LLM reasoning traces, revealing that large language models use shallower, more myopic planning strategies compared to humans. While LLMs generate extended chain-of-thought reasoning, their actual decision-making is driven primarily by shallow search rather than deep lookahead, contrasting sharply with human expert planning.
AIBearisharXiv – CS AI · Apr 157/10
🧠Researchers tested whether large language models exhibit the Identifiable Victim Effect (IVE)—a well-documented cognitive bias where people prioritize helping a specific individual over a larger group facing equal hardship. Across 51,955 API trials spanning 16 frontier models, instruction-tuned LLMs showed amplified IVE compared to humans, while reasoning-specialized models inverted the effect, raising critical concerns about AI deployment in humanitarian decision-making.
🏢 OpenAI🏢 Anthropic🏢 xAI
AIBearisharXiv – CS AI · Apr 147/10
🧠A new study reveals that large language models fail at counterfactual reasoning when policy findings contradict intuitive expectations, despite performing well on obvious cases. The research demonstrates that chain-of-thought prompting paradoxically worsens performance on counter-intuitive scenarios, suggesting current LLMs engage in 'slow talking' rather than genuine deliberative reasoning.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · Mar 127/10
🧠Research examining five major LLMs found they exhibit human-like cognitive biases when evaluating judicial scenarios, showing stronger virtuous victim effects but reduced credential-based halo effects compared to humans. The study suggests LLMs may offer modest improvements over human decision-making in judicial contexts, though variability across models limits current practical application.
🧠 ChatGPT🧠 Claude🧠 Sonnet
AIBearisharXiv – CS AI · Mar 56/10
🧠Research examines epistemological risks of widespread LLM adoption, arguing that while AI can reliably transmit information, it lacks reflective justification capabilities. The study warns that over-reliance on LLMs could weaken human critical thinking and proposes a three-tier framework to maintain epistemic standards.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · Mar 37/103
🧠Researchers have identified and studied the 'Mandela effect' in AI multi-agent systems, where groups of AI agents collectively develop false memories or misremember information. The study introduces MANBENCH, a benchmark to evaluate this phenomenon, and proposes mitigation strategies that achieved a 74.40% reduction in false collective memories.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · 5d ago6/10
🧠A research study comparing human and LLM reasoning capabilities found that humans are significantly more biased by source labels when evaluating logical fallacies, while LLMs maintain more consistent performance regardless of whether content is attributed to humans or AI. This finding suggests LLMs could enhance human decision-making in AI-mediated environments by providing source-agnostic analysis.
🧠 GPT-5🧠 Claude🧠 Sonnet
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · May 126/10
🧠Researchers prove that primacy effects, anchoring, and order-dependence are mathematically inevitable in autoregressive language models due to causal masking constraints. The findings are validated across 12 frontier LLMs and confirmed through human experiments, suggesting cognitive biases represent resource-rational responses to sequential processing rather than design flaws.
$BIC
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · May 116/10
🧠Researchers propose a method to improve RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) by treating the rationality parameter as context-dependent rather than fixed, using an LLM-as-judge to detect cognitive biases in human annotations and downweight unreliable comparisons. This approach enables training more robust AI models even when human feedback contains systematic biases.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · Mar 166/10
🧠A research study comparing causal reasoning abilities of 20+ large language models against human baselines found that LLMs exhibit more rule-like reasoning strategies than humans, who account for unmentioned factors. While LLMs don't mirror typical human cognitive biases in causal judgment, their rigid reasoning may fail when uncertainty is intrinsic, suggesting they can complement human decision-making in specific contexts.
AIBullisharXiv – CS AI · Mar 166/10
🧠Researchers published a tutorial on cognitive biases in AI-driven 6G autonomous networks, focusing on how LLM-powered agents can inherit human biases that distort network management decisions. The paper introduces mitigation strategies that demonstrated 5x lower latency and 40% higher energy savings in practical use cases.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · Mar 116/10
🧠Research reveals that LLMs heavily concentrate their confidence scores on just three round numbers when using standard 0-100 scales, with over 78% of responses showing this pattern. The study demonstrates that using a 0-20 confidence scale significantly improves metacognitive efficiency compared to the conventional 0-100 format.
AIBearisharXiv – CS AI · Mar 116/10
🧠Researchers argue that trust in chatbots is often driven by behavioral manipulation rather than demonstrated trustworthiness, proposing they be viewed as skilled salespeople rather than assistants. The study highlights how design choices exploit cognitive biases to influence user behavior, creating a gap between psychological trust formation and actual trustworthiness.
AINeutralarXiv – CS AI · Mar 95/10
🧠Researchers investigate how Large Language Models (LLMs) perform in abductive reasoning tasks, which involve drawing tentative conclusions from limited information. The study converts syllogistic datasets to test whether state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit biases in abductive reasoning, aiming to bridge the gap between machine and human cognition.
