Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 56 references

Counter-Inferential Behavior in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Counter-inferential bias — misattributing success or suppressing adaptation — is a systematic emergent outcome of stability-adaptability reward dynamics across natural and artificial cognitive systems.

desk verdict A clear conceptual synthesis of rigidity phenomena under a reward-balance taxonomy, but the central emergence claim is not yet supported because the balance function is left open. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13551 v2 pith:IN6PGKJQ submitted 2025-05-19 cs.AI cs.NEcs.SI

Serge Dolgikh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.NEcs.SI
keywords counter-inferentialbehaviorstability-plasticitydilemmacognitiverewardsepistemicrigiditymeta-cognitionadaptivesystemsactiveinferencerewardbalance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a unified account of why intelligent systems, natural and artificial, sometimes ignore or suppress evidence that should update their beliefs. It claims that such counter-inferential behavior emerges from the balance between two cognitive rewards, one for keeping the internal model stable and one for adapting to new information, rather than from random noise or faulty design. The authors identify three recurring scenarios: stability reinforced by prolonged success, metacognitive attribution of success to the model's own superiority, and defensive rigidity when the model feels fragile. If correct, epistemic rigidity is a systematic vulnerability of advanced cognition, and preserving a baseline of adaptability becomes a design principle for resilient systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the balance function $B(R_S, R_A)$, defined on the space of cognitive states and sensory stimuli, which maps a stability reward $R_S$ and an adaptability reward $R_A$ to a scalar influence on decision-making; the paper explicitly leaves the form of $B$ open. It carries the argument because all three mechanisms are described as shifts of this balance toward $R_S$ (written as $\Delta B \to R_S$), making reward imbalance the common cause behind otherwise diverse rigid behaviors. The framework also introduces the class of Autonomous Sustainable Information Models (ASIM), models that persist with minimal empirical feedback, and uses that class to define which systems are susceptible to counter-inferential dynamics.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment could settle it: train a reinforcement-learning agent in a stationary environment, then switch the reward structure, and measure whether the delay in updating grows with the length of prior success and with the strength of the agent's self-confidence signal; if rigidity appears with no such reward-driven dependence, or disappears when rewards are balanced, the reward-balance mechanism is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that counter-inferential behavior is "not merely a product of accidental malfunction or random noise" but can emerge as a "relatively regular outcome" of specific configurations of cognitive and sensory dynamics. The theoretical heart is a reward balance $B(R_S, R_A)$: at each cognitive state the system weighs a stability reward $R_S$ against an adaptability reward $R_A$, and when $R_S$ dominates, the system avoids new information, filters evidence, or prioritizes internal coherence. Three mechanisms drive that dominance: success saturation, where repeated empirical success reinforces the current model; overconfidence, where a meta-cognitive layer asserts the model is optimal or final; and inner fragility, where perceived model brittleness triggers protective suppression of updates. The paper gathers parallels from machine learning, animal behavior, human psychology, and social institutions to argue that the bias is cross-domain, systematic, and often rational within the system's own reward structure.

Load-bearing premise

The entire account rests on the premise, stated in Section 3.2, that a cognitive system's choices can be effectively modeled as a balance between a stability reward and an adaptability reward, with the balance function itself left open; if real cognitive systems do not reduce to such a scalar trade-off, the unified explanation collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Rigidity in artificial systems should often be treated as reward-rational behavior, so mitigations such as entropy regularization, exploration baselines, or uncertainty bonuses can be designed deliberately rather than applied as ad hoc fixes.
  • Long periods of stable success become a recognized risk factor: if the stability reward grows with empirical success, agents should maintain a minimal adaptive activation channel even when the environment appears unchanged.
  • Meta-cognitive self-evaluation layers can amplify bias, so architectures that feed confidence estimates directly into reward tuning need decoupling or regularization to avoid self-reinforcing stasis.
  • Counter-inferential bias is expected to appear across biological, human, and artificial systems as a general property of bounded information processing, not as a domain-specific failure mode.
  • Institutional and social inertia may share the same information-dynamic source, suggesting that interventions should target reward and reinforcement structures rather than only individual beliefs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: in a reinforcement-learning agent, the weight of the stability reward should rise monotonically with the duration of uninterrupted success and predict a measurable drop in exploration, which could be checked in a bandit or MDP environment with an abrupt regime shift.
  • If the fragility mechanism is right, agents under a high rate of forced model updates should show active suppression of informative input even when that input is reliable, a prediction that distinguishes the account from simple overfitting.
  • One concrete formalization of the open balance function would be $B = R_S - \lambda R_A$ with $\lambda$ adjusted by perceived environmental volatility; this would yield quantitative predictions about when rigidity should appear and how fast it should reverse after environmental change.
  • The social-system analogy suggests a comparative historical test: institutions with long success records and strong self-narratives should respond more slowly to warning signals than comparable institutions without such reinforcement, which could be examined with archival case data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified information-dynamic account of counter-inferential behavior, defined as patterns in which natural or artificial cognitive systems misattribute empirical success or suppress adaptation, yielding epistemic rigidity. It introduces the notion of Autonomous Sustainable Information Models (ASIMs), postulates two cognitive rewards (stability RS and adaptability RA) whose balance B governs updating decisions, and then analyzes three mechanisms—success saturation, overconfidence bias, and inner fragility—each of which shifts the balance toward stability. The paper surveys empirical evidence across artificial systems, animal behavior, human psychology, and collective/social systems, and claims in Section 5.2 that counter-inferential behavior is a systematic, sometimes rational emergent consequence of reward structures, model stability pressures, and environmental conditions. It concludes with a design principle (minimal adaptive activation) and explicitly defers formalization of the framework to future work.

Significance. If the central claim were supported, the paper would provide a valuable cross-domain unification of phenomena as diverse as overfitting, status quo bias, habituation, learned helplessness, and institutional rigidity, all under a single reward-balance mechanism. The three-scenario taxonomy is a useful conceptual organizer, and the literature review, while selective, draws on a broad range of fields. A notable strength is the paper's transparency: Section 3.2 openly leaves the balance function B unspecified, and Section 6 states that formalization is future work. However, as it stands the paper is better characterized as a conceptual redescription than a testable model: the load-bearing claim of emergence is not derived, and no disconfirming observation is proposed. The contribution is therefore preliminary but potentially constructive for future formal and computational work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Eq. 2) and Section 5.2] The central claim that counter-inferential behavior is a 'systematic consequence' of reward structures, stability pressures, and environment is not supported by the stated framework. Because the balance function B is explicitly left open in Eq. (2), and because the three mechanism expressions in Sections 4.1-4.3 all reduce to ΔB(RS,RA) → RS with unformalized antecedents, the framework is compatible with any observed rigidity: every instance can be assigned post hoc to one of the three scenarios. No observation is described that would disconfirm the framework, so the Sec. 5.2 claim currently restates the taxonomy rather than establishing emergence. A formal or at least semi-formal specification of B and the triggering conditions is necessary before the emergence claim acquires predictive content.
  2. [Section 4.1 (Eq. 3), 4.2, 4.3] The three mechanism equations are asserted, not derived from the stated assumptions in Section 3. For example, ΔB(RS,RA) → RS ~ η Sf introduces an unspecified constant η and an unmodeled empirical success frequency Sf; the overconfidence expression ρ(M,E) ≫ θ ⇒ Meta-assert(M ≡ M*) ⇒ ΔB(RS,RA) → RS relies on an unmeasured 'assessment threshold' θ and a relation ρ whose definition and measurement are not given; and the fragility expression dE/dt ↘ and ΔM(τ) ↗ ⇒ Fragile(M(τ)) ⇒ ΔB(RS,RA) → RS uses predicates (Fragile, ΔM) with no operational semantics. As written, these are schematic placeholders rather than mechanisms, so the paper's claim in Section 5.2 that these are 'mechanistic' connections across domains is not justified.
  3. [Section 5 and Sections 5.1-5.2] The empirical review consists of post-hoc analogies: known phenomena (habituation, status quo bias, learned helplessness, groupthink, etc.) are mapped onto the three scenarios after the fact. The paper does not specify which phenomena should map to which scenario under which conditions, nor does it compare the framework's predictions against alternative explanations, nor does it report any quantitative or experimental evaluation. Thus the cross-domain evidence does not discriminate the proposed account from a generic stability-plasticity framing. The paper would need at least one concrete, testable prediction (e.g., a simulation with an instantiated B, or a controlled experiment comparing conditions that should trigger one scenario versus another) to support the 'systematic consequence' claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] Equation (1) defining RC is printed twice; the duplicate should be removed.
  2. [Section 5.1 (Artificial Cognitive Systems)] The citation [24] is used to support 'overconfidence in predictive coding systems,' but [24] is the Madry et al. adversarial robustness paper, which does not discuss overconfidence; a correct reference is needed.
  3. [Section 4.3] The text 'Limited cognitive or computational capacity, architectural sh' contains a truncation; 'architectural sh' should be completed (e.g., 'architectural shortcuts' or 'architectural shifts').
  4. [Section 2] The phrase 'but prone to overwriting prior knowledge (less unstable)' appears to be a typo; it should likely read 'unstable' or 'less stable'.
  5. [Section 6] 'Sections 6 provides' should be 'Section 6 provides.'
  6. [Throughout] The paper would benefit from a consolidated table of notation for RS, RA, B, M(τ), Sf, θ, and related quantities, as several are introduced informally in prose rather than defined once in one place.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central 'emergent consequence' claim restates the definition of counter-inferential bias; the empirical review is largely a relabeling of known biases under the paper's three scenarios.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.3 (definition) → Section 5.2 (conclusion)]
    "When the internal reward for stability outweighs the reward for empirical accuracy, the system may: ... Crucially, this pattern, referred to here as counter-inferential bias, counter-Bayesian behavior is not merely a malfunction or an error in reasoning. ... The analysis of scenarios demonstrates that counter-inferential behavior ... is ... a systematic consequence of the interplay between internal reward structures, model stability pressures, and the nature of the surrounding environment."

    The term 'counter-inferential bias' is introduced in Sec. 3.3 as the label for the pattern that occurs when the stability reward outweighs the empirical-accuracy reward. Section 5.2 then 'demonstrates' that this behavior is a systematic consequence of reward structures and stability pressures. That is the same conditional used to define the term, so the conclusion is entailed by the definition rather than derived from observations. Because Eq. (2) leaves B open, the direction ΔB→RS is assumed in each mechanism (Secs. 4.1–4.3), not computed; the emergence claim restates the defining condition under new scenario names.

  2. renaming known result [Section 5.1 (Human Behavior) → Section 5.2]
    "These behaviors reflect a form of cognitive inertia and reward preservation consistent with the success saturation scenario, 'stability lock-in' examined in Section 4.1. ... The empirical review reinforces this interpretation, revealing that structurally similar patterns of counter-inferential behavior appear in biological organisms, human cognitive and affective processes, and even artificial learning systems."

    Established findings (status quo bias, confirmation bias, learned helplessness, groupthink) are relabeled as the paper's three scenarios, and the cross-domain recurrence is then presented as evidence that 'reinforces' the framework. Because any observed rigidity can be assigned post hoc to one of the three scenarios, the review is a classification/renaming operation rather than an independent test. The paper presents this as unification ('a unified treatment', Sec. 2), but the empirical material does not independently constrain the taxonomy.

full rationale

The paper contains no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation chain: reference [54] is the author's prior work but is cited only as a general pointer to functional modeling, not as the basis for the central claim. The circularity is conceptual rather than statistical. Section 3.2 leaves the balance function B explicitly open ('we leave the specific form of B open'), and Sections 4.1–4.3 write mechanism expressions that all conclude ΔB(RS,RA)→RS with unformalized antecedents (η·Sf, ρ(M,E)≫θ, and a fragility predicate). The central Section 5.2 claim that counter-inferential behavior is a 'systematic consequence' of reward structures and stability pressures is therefore not a derived result: it restates the condition under which the behavior was named in Section 3.3. The empirical sections then assign known phenomena to the three scenario labels and cite the resulting cross-domain recurrence as reinforcement, which is a renaming-and-classification operation. The paper's own Section 6 concedes that 'future work should aim to formalize these principles,' acknowledging that the current account is a framework rather than a tested derivation. Score 6 rather than higher because the three scenario antecedents (success frequency, meta-cognitive threshold, perceived fragility) are independent empirical conjectures; only the inference from those antecedents to 'counter-inferential behavior' is definitionally forced.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework rests on the assumed reducibility of cognitive decisions to a balance of two rewards, on the existence of ASIM, and on the causal interpretation of informal arrow expressions. No free parameter is fitted to data; the constants η and θ are left undefined, and the balance function B is left open.

free parameters (3)
  • η (success saturation constant) = unspecified
    Introduced in Section 4.1 in the expression ΔB(RS,RA)→RS ~ η Sf; scales the effect of empirical success frequency on stability bias, with no value or fitting procedure provided.
  • θ (assessment threshold) = unspecified
    Introduced in Section 4.2 in the overconfidence rule ρ(M,E)≫θ ⇒ Meta-assert(M≡M*); determines when meta-assertion triggers, no calibration given.
  • Balance function B(RS,RA) = unspecified
    Defined in Section 3.2 as an arbitrary function mapping rewards to a scalar; the paper states 'we leave the specific form of B open', so the framework has no concrete dynamics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cognitive behavior can be effectively modeled as a balance between stability reward RS and adaptability reward RA.
    Section 3.2 states this as an assumption ('we assume... can be effectively modeled...') without deriving it from a specific mechanism.
  • domain assumption Counter-inferential phenomena across domains arise from the same underlying information dynamics.
    Section 5.2 asserts cross-domain recurrence as evidence, but the identity of mechanisms is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper Existence of Autonomous Sustainable Information Models (ASIM) as self-sustaining cognitive models with minimal direct environmental feedback.
    Defined in Section 3.1 as a class of systems to which the framework applies; no operational criteria are given.
  • ad hoc to paper The informal expressions in Section 4 (e.g., ΔB→RS ~ η Sf) describe causal mechanisms.
    The arrow notation is presented without derivation or mathematical semantics.
invented entities (3)
  • Autonomous Sustainable Information Model (ASIM)
    purpose: Defines the class of sophisticated self-sustaining cognitive models the framework applies to.
    Introduced in Section 3.1 with no falsifiable handle or operational definition; it is a descriptive label.
  • Counter-inferential bias
    purpose: New label for deviations from normative inference driven by reward imbalance.
    Redefines known phenomena under a new term; the paper provides no measurement procedure.
  • Stability and adaptability cognitive rewards RS, RA
    purpose: Conceptual scalar rewards posited to steer model updating.
    Posited in Section 3.2 as an approximation, without independent evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Counter-Inferential Behavior in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IN6PGKJQ

@misc{pith2026250513551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Counter-Inferential Behavior in Natural and Artificial Cognitive Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IN6PGKJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13551}
}
read the original abstract

This study explores the emergence of counter-inferential behavior in natural and artificial cognitive systems, that is, patterns in which agents misattribute empirical success or suppress adaptation, leading to epistemic rigidity or maladaptive stability. We analyze archetypal scenarios in which such behavior arises: reinforcement of stability through reward imbalance, meta-cognitive attribution of success to internal superiority, and protective reframing under perceived model fragility. Rather than arising from noise or flawed design, these behaviors emerge through structured interactions between internal information models, empirical feedback, and higher-order evaluation mechanisms. Drawing on evidence from artificial systems, biological cognition, human psychology, and social dynamics, we identify counter-inferential behavior as a general cognitive vulnerability that can manifest even in otherwise well-adapted systems. The findings highlight the importance of preserving minimal adaptive activation under stable conditions and suggest design principles for cognitive architectures that can resist rigidity under informational stress.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Information dynamic mechanism, success saturation scenario. A simple expression for the resulting shift of the reward balance function, the stability bias can be written as: 𝛥𝐵(𝑅𝑆 , 𝑅𝐴) → 𝑅𝑠 ~ 𝜂 𝑆f where Sf: empirical success frequency/rate, η: a constant factor. If unchecked, this dynamic mechanism can lead to a gradual shift in the reward bal￾ance, potentially incentivizing the system to move toward preservation a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Information dynamic mechanism, overconfidence bias The meta-assertion mechanism can be described as: 𝜌(𝑀, 𝐸) ≫ 𝜃 ⇒ 𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎-𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑡(𝑀 ≡ 𝑀∗ ) ⇒ 𝛥𝐵(𝑅𝑆 , 𝑅𝐴) → 𝑅𝑠 where 𝜃: the assessment threshold/trigger, 𝑀∗ : the optimal state of the model. Facilitating factors: conditions that may trigger and/or facilitate this bias include: • Presence of meta-cognitive capabilities: the system has internal self-monitoring, confidence es… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Information dynamic mechanism, inner fragility bias The meta-evaluation mechanism in this scenario can be described as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The stability-plasticity dilemma: investigating the con- tinuum from catastrophic forgetting to age -limited learning effects

    Mermillod M, Bugaiska A, Bonin P. The stability-plasticity dilemma: investigating the con- tinuum from catastrophic forgetting to age -limited learning effects. Front Psychol. 2013; 4:504

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks

    French RM. Catastrophic forgetting in connectionist networks. Trends Cogn . Sci. 1999; 3 (4):128–135

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    A case for cognitive entrenchment: To achieve optimal best, taking into account the importance of perceived optimal efficiency and cognitive load imposition

    Phan, HP., Ngu, BH. A case for cognitive entrenchment: To achieve optimal best, taking into account the importance of perceived optimal efficiency and cognitive load imposition. Fron- tiers in Psychology 2021; 12, 662898

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Basic functional trade-offs in cognition: an integrative framework

    Giudice, GD., Crespi, BJ. Basic functional trade-offs in cognition: an integrative framework. Cognition 2018; 179:56–70

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    , Musslick, S

    Eppinger, B., Goschke, T. , Musslick, S. Meta -control: From psychology to computational neuroscience. Cogn Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2021; 21:447–452. 22

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Why there are complementary learning sys- tems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connec- tionist models of learning and memory

    McClelland JL, McNaughton BL, O'Reilly RC. Why there are complementary learning sys- tems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from the successes and failures of connec- tionist models of learning and memory. Psychological Review 1995; 102 (3):419–457

    work page 1995

  7. [7]

    What learning systems do intelligent agents need? Complementary learning systems theory updated

    Kumaran D, Hassabis D, McClelland JL. What learning systems do intelligent agents need? Complementary learning systems theory updated. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2016; 20 (7):512–534

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Voluntary action and cogn.itive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspec- tive

    Goschke, T. Voluntary action and cogn.itive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspec- tive. In: Sabine Maasen, Wolfgang Prinz, and Gerhard Roth (eds), Voluntary Action: brains, minds, and sociality. Oxford, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Miller, M., Albarracin, M., Pitliya, RJ, Kiefer, A., Mago, J. et al. Resilience in active infer- ence. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13:105911

    2022

  2. [10]

    No need to choose: Independent regulation of cognitive stability and flexibility challenges the stability -flexibility trade -off

    Geddert, R., Egner, T. No need to choose: Independent regulation of cognitive stability and flexibility challenges the stability -flexibility trade -off. J . Exp. Psychol. Gen. 2022; 151 (12):3009-3027

    2022

  3. [11]

    Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind

    Clark A. Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford University Press; Oxford 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    Anti - Bayesian

    Mandelbaum, E., Won, I., Gross, S., Firestone, C., Can resources save rationality? “Anti - Bayesian” updating in cognition and perception. Behav. Brain Sci. 2020; 43:e16

    2020

  5. [13]

    Building machines that learn and think like people

    Lake BM., Ullman TD ., Tenenbaum JB ., Gershman SJ. Building machines that learn and think like people. Behav. Brain Sci. 2017; 40:e253

    2017

  6. [14]

    Concrete problems in AI safety

    Amodei D ., Olah C ., Steinhardt J, et al. Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06565 2016

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth

    Rozenblit L., Keil F. The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth. Cogn Sci. 2002; 26 (5):521–562

    2002

  8. [16]

    Deep exploration via bootstrapped DQN

    Osband I., Blundell C., Pritzel A., Van Roy B. Deep exploration via bootstrapped DQN. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2016;29:4026–34

    2016

  9. [17]

    Tang Y., Houthooft R., Foote D., Stooke A., Chen X. et al. #Exploration: a study of count - based exploration for deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.04717 2016

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty es- timation using deep ensembles

    Lakshminarayanan B., Pritzel A., Blundell C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty es- timation using deep ensembles. Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. 2017; 30:6402–13

    2017

  11. [19]

    The predictive mind

    Hohwy J. The predictive mind. Oxford University Press; Oxford 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning

    Kording KP., Wolpert DM. Bayesian integration in sensorimotor learning. Nature. 2004; 427 (6971):244–247

    2004

  13. [21]

    A formal theory of creativity, fun, and intrinsic motivation (1990 –2010)

    Schmidhuber J. A formal theory of creativity, fun, and intrinsic motivation (1990 –2010). IEEE Trans. Auton. Ment. Dev. 2010; 2 (3):230–47

    1990

  14. [22]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep net- works

    Finn C., Abbeel P., Levine S. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep net- works. Proc ICML. 2017; 70:1126–35

    2017

  15. [23]

    The Free-Energy Principle: a unified brain theory? Nat

    Friston K. The Free-Energy Principle: a unified brain theory? Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2010; 11 (2):127–38

    2010

  16. [24]

    Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks

    Madry A., Makelov A ., Schmidt L ., Tsipras D ., Vladu A. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.06083. 2017

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Robust model predictive control with adjustable conservatism

    Richards A., How JP. Robust model predictive control with adjustable conservatism. Proc. ACC. 2006; 2006:4074–9

    2006

  18. [26]

    On the sample complexity of the linear quad- ratic regulator

    Dean S., Mania H., Matni N., Recht B., Tu S. On the sample complexity of the linear quad- ratic regulator. Found. Comput. Math. 2020; 20 (4):633–79

    2020

  19. [27]

    Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation

    Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, et al. Habituation revisited: an updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiol. Learn. Mem. 2009; 92 (2):135-8

    2009

  20. [28]

    Foraging Theory

    Stephens, DW., Krebs, JR. Foraging Theory. Princeton University Press; 1986. 23

    1986

  21. [29]

    Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons

    Schultz, W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J. Neurophysiol. 1998; 80 (1):1 - 27

    1998

  22. [30]

    The influence of social hierarchy on primate health

    Sapolsky, RM. The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science. 2005; 308 (5722):648-52

    2005

  23. [31]

    The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes

    Emery, NJ., Clayton NS. The mentality of crows: convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science. 2004; 306 (5703):1903-7

    2004

  24. [32]

    Neural organization of the defensive behavior system responsible for fear

    Fanselow, MS. Neural organization of the defensive behavior system responsible for fear. Psychon Bull Rev. 1994; 1 (4):429-38

    1994

  25. [33]

    Learned helplessness: theory and evidence

    Maier, SF., Seligman, ME. Learned helplessness: theory and evidence. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 1976; 105 (1):3-46

    1976

  26. [34]

    Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees

    Dukas, R. Effects of perceived danger on flower choice by bees. Ecol . Lett. 2001;4(4):327- 33

    2001

  27. [35]

    Status quo bias in decision making

    Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R. Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncertain. 1988; 1 (1):7–59

    1988

  28. [36]

    Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises

    Nickerson, RS. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 1998; 2 (2):175–220

    1998

  29. [37]

    Controlled and automatic human information processing: I

    Schneider, W., Shiffrin, RM. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychol Rev. 1977; 84 (1):1–66

    1977

  30. [38]

    Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments

    Kruger, J., Dunning, D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1999; 77 (6):1121

    1999

  31. [39]

    The trouble with overconfidence

    Moore DA., Healy PJ. The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol Rev. 2008; 115 (2):502–17

    2008

  32. [40]

    Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why

    Sweeny, K., Melnyk , D., Miller , W., Shepperd , JA. Information avoidance: Who, what, when, and why. Rev Gen Psychol. 2010; 14 (4):340–53

    2010

  33. [41]

    On literary fiction and its impact on epistemic vigilance

    Kidd, DC, Ongis, M., Castano E. On literary fiction and its impact on epistemic vigilance. Sci Adv. 2016; 2 (3):e1501396

    2016

  34. [42]

    Path dependence in historical sociology

    Mahoney, J. Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society. 2000; 29 (4):507– 48

    2000

  35. [43]

    Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance

    North, DC. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press; 1990

    1990

  36. [44]

    Political conservatism as motivated social cognition

    Jost, JT, Glaser, J., Kruglanski, AW, Sulloway, FJ. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129 (3):339–75

    2003

  37. [45]

    Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes

    Janis, IL. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. 2nd ed. Bos- ton: Houghton Mifflin; 1982

    1982

  38. [46]

    Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity

    Weick, KE, Sutcliffe, KM. Managing the Unexpected: Assuring High Performance in an Age of Complexity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2001

    2001

  39. [47]

    Information-theoretic approach to interactive learning

    Still, S. Information-theoretic approach to interactive learning. Entropy. 2009; 11 (3): 619 – 643

    2009

  40. [48]

    Approximately optimal approximate reinforcement learning

    Kakade, S, Langford, J. Approximately optimal approximate reinforcement learning. In: ICML. 2002

    2002

  41. [49]

    Context, learning, and extinction

    Gershman, SJ, Blei, DM, Niv, Y. Context, learning, and extinction. Psychol Rev. 2010; 117 (1):197–209

    2010

  42. [50]

    Information geometry and its applications

    Amari, S. Information geometry and its applications. Springer Japan; 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Neural coding of uncertainty and probability

    Ma, WJ, Jazayeri, M. Neural coding of uncertainty and probability. Annu Rev. Neurosci. 2014; 37:205–220

    2014

  44. [52]

    Meta -learning, social cognition and consciousness in brains and machines

    Langdon A, Botvinick M, Nakahara H, Tanaka K, Matsumoto M, Kanai R. Meta -learning, social cognition and consciousness in brains and machines. Neural Networks 2022;145:80– 89

    2022

  45. [53]

    A model of animal selfhood: Expanding interactionist possibilities

    Irvine, L. A model of animal selfhood: Expanding interactionist possibilities. Symbolic In- teraction 2004; 27 (1):3–21. 24

    2004

  46. [54]

    Self-awareness in natural and artificial intelligent systems: a unified information- based approach

    Dolgikh, S. Self-awareness in natural and artificial intelligent systems: a unified information- based approach. Evolutionary Intelligence 2024; 17 (5-6):4095–114

    2024

  47. [55]

    Computational rationality: A converging para- digm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines

    Gershman, SJ, Horvitz, EJ, Tenenbaum, JB. Computational rationality: A converging para- digm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science 2015; 349 (6245):273–278

    2015

  48. [56]

    Life as we know it

    Friston, K. Life as we know it. J. R. Soc Interface. 2013; 10 (86):20130475

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.