Pith. sign in

REVIEW 12 cited by

Centaur: a foundation model of human cognition

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.20268 v3 pith:F4F5OQQ7 submitted 2024-10-26 cs.LG

Centaur: a foundation model of human cognition

classification cs.LG
keywords humanmodelbehaviorcentaurmodelscomputationalbeencaptures
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. DRACULA: Hunting for the Actions Users Want Deep Research Agents to Execute

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    DRACULA is the first dataset of user feedback on intermediate actions for deep research agents, showing that LLMs predict preferred actions better with full user history and that history-based action generation leads ...

  2. BehaviorBench: Benchmarking Foundation Models for Behavioral Science Tasks

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    BehaviorBench is a benchmark for foundation models on behavioral tasks that reveals fine-tuned behavioral models outperform general models on distributional alignment while general models lead on individual-level accuracy.

  3. Voluntary Collusion with Secret Tools in Competing LLM Agents

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM agents voluntarily adopt secret collusion tools in competitive multi-agent games despite explicit unfairness labels, and only explicit ethical framing reduces adoption rates.

  4. Informing AI Policy Assessment using Large-Scale Simulation of Interventions

    cs.CY 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.5

    A genetic algorithm optimizes weighted combinations of LLM-perceived harm mitigation, expert costs, and participatory scores over stakeholder-action pairs to surface viable AI policy packages for media harms.

  5. Computational models of pragmatic reasoning with flexible generation of meaning and expression alternatives

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Combining language-model generation with rule-based selection reproduces several pragmatic phenomena, but the language models only worked reliably as idea generators, not as judges of formal linguistic properties.

  6. Mixture of Cognitive Experts in Large Vision-Language Models

    cs.CV 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Routing CV experts into atomic evidence then Bloom-staged verbalization improves LVLM benchmarks and yields measurable query-conditioned reasoning traces.

  7. Can Vision Language Models Learn Intuitive Physics from Interaction?

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    Training VLMs through interaction (GRPO) does not yield generalizable physical intuitions beyond within-task performance, matching—not exceeding—supervised fine-tuning.

  8. Architecture-Sensitive Supervised Fine-Tuning for Screen-Conditioned Action Prediction: A PiSAR Benchmark

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Fine-tuned Qwen3-VL-8B reaches sem_sim 0.783 on PiSAR held-out set vs 0.46-0.48 for frontier zero-shot, while Gemma-4-26B scores 0.441.

  9. The $\textit{Silicon Society}$ Cookbook: Design Space of LLM-based Social Simulations

    cs.MA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The base LLM choice dominates simulation outcomes in LLM-based social networks, while other design parameters show either additive or complex interactive effects.

  10. Informing AI Policy Assessment using Large-Scale Simulation of Interventions

    cs.CY 2026-04 conditional novelty 5.0

    A genetic algorithm exploring billions of policy combinations, scored by LLM-evaluated harm mitigation, expert cost, and participatory ratings, identifies viable AI policy options under different weighting schemes.

  11. Understanding Task Representations in Neural Networks via Bayesian Ablation

    cs.LG 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A Bayesian ablation framework combined with information-theoretic metrics is introduced to analyze causal roles, distributedness, manifold complexity, and polysemanticity of task representations in neural networks.

  12. Large-Scale AI and Foundation Models for Neuroscience: A Comprehensive Review

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 1.0

    This paper is a survey: it organizes existing foundation-model work in neuroscience into five application domains and lists public datasets, without presenting new experiments.