Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 53 references

MindGap uses on-device AI to guide PTSD patients through three layers of observation at the feeling tone gap for upstream pathway dissolution.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-30 20:41 UTC pith:Z4JXM3OQ

load-bearing objection This is a conceptual framework proposal for an on-device LLM delivering Buddhist dependent origination practice for PTSD, with no data, no measurements, and no mechanistic evidence for the claimed neuroplastic effects. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.14660 v1 pith:Z4JXM3OQ submitted 2026-05-14 cs.AI

MindGap: A Conversational AI Framework for Upstream Neuroplastic Intervention in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Eranga Bandara , Ross Gore , Asanga Gunaratna , Ravi Mukkamala , Nihal Siriwardanagea , Sachini Rajapakse , Isurunima Kularathna , Pramoda Karunarathna
show 11 more authors
Wathsala Herath Chalani Rajapakse Sachin Shetty Anita H. Clayton Christopher K. Rhea Ng Wee Keong Kasun De Zoysa Amin Hass Shaifali Kaushik Preston Samuel Atmaram Yarlagadda
This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords PTSDneuroplasticityconversational AIdependent originationon-device LLMupstream interventionfeeling tone gaplong-term depression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims PTSD stems from Hebbian long-term potentiation creating hair-triggered amygdala-HPA cascades that fire before awareness intervenes. Standard therapies like exposure or CBT act after the cascade begins by teaching tolerance or reframing. MindGap instead deploys a fine-tuned lightweight LLM on the device to deliver daily sessions based on dependent origination, training patients to notice the bare affective signal, see it as self-arising, and identify the underlying conditioned belief. These steps are presented as engaging deeper prefrontal regulation and inducing long-term depression that weakens the reactive pathway at its origin. The entire system runs locally with no data leaving the device, targeting contexts that prohibit cloud services.

Core claim

MindGap is a privacy-preserving on-device conversational AI framework that delivers structured neuroplastic rehabilitation for PTSD through the practice of dependent origination, guiding patients through three progressive layers of observation at the feeling tone gap to produce genuine upstream dissolution of reactive pathways rather than downstream suppression.

What carries the argument

The feeling tone gap as the site between pre-cognitive affective signal and reactive elaboration, addressed via three layers of observation drawn from dependent origination.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that structured practice of dependent origination delivered via a fine-tuned on-device LLM will produce measurable long-term depression of amygdala-HPA pathways and genuine upstream neural reorganisation rather than merely teaching coping skills.

What would settle it

A controlled study measuring amygdala reactivity via fMRI before and after months of MindGap use that finds no reduction in reactivity or PTSD symptoms compared to a matched control group receiving standard downstream therapy.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes MindGap, a privacy-preserving on-device conversational AI framework that delivers structured practice of dependent origination to PTSD patients via a fine-tuned lightweight LLM. It claims this guides users through three progressive layers of observation at the 'feeling tone gap' (noticing the bare affective signal, recognizing it as self-arising, and recognizing the conditioned implicit belief), each producing progressively deeper prefrontal engagement and long-term depression-mediated weakening of amygdala-HPA reactive pathways for genuine upstream neural dissolution, unlike downstream suppression in existing therapies such as CBT or exposure.

Significance. If the claimed mapping from LLM-guided conversational practice to measurable LTD and structural reorganization in PTSD-relevant circuits were demonstrated, the framework would represent a significant advance in scalable, privacy-preserving neuroplastic interventions. The on-device constraint is a clear practical strength for clinical and military settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the three layers 'correspond to progressively deeper prefrontal regulatory engagement and progressively deeper long-term depression-mediated weakening of the reactive pathway, producing genuine upstream dissolution' is presented without any cited neuroscientific literature, mechanistic model, or proposed biomarker protocol linking the specific practices to amygdala-HPA LTD. This untested causal chain is load-bearing for the paper's central therapeutic claim.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: No details are supplied on the fine-tuning procedure, dialogue structures, or fidelity safeguards for the lightweight LLM to deliver the three layers without conversational drift, nor on how 'daily calibrated exposure sessions' would be implemented or evaluated on-device without data egress or external validation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback highlighting areas where the manuscript's claims and implementation details require clarification and support. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve rigor while preserving the conceptual nature of the proposal.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that the three layers 'correspond to progressively deeper prefrontal regulatory engagement and progressively deeper long-term depression-mediated weakening of the reactive pathway, producing genuine upstream dissolution' is presented without any cited neuroscientific literature, mechanistic model, or proposed biomarker protocol linking the specific practices to amygdala-HPA LTD. This untested causal chain is load-bearing for the paper's central therapeutic claim.

    Authors: We agree the abstract states the mechanistic mapping without supporting citations or a biomarker protocol, making the causal chain appear stronger than the evidence provided. The manuscript is a conceptual framework proposal rather than an empirical study, drawing on general principles of Hebbian plasticity and prefrontal-amygdala dynamics. In revision we will (1) add citations to established literature on long-term depression in fear extinction circuits and mindfulness-related prefrontal engagement, (2) include a simple mechanistic diagram, and (3) explicitly frame the three-layer progression as a testable hypothesis with an outline of potential future biomarker measures (e.g., local field potential or fMRI protocols). This revision will qualify the therapeutic claim appropriately. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract, final paragraph: No details are supplied on the fine-tuning procedure, dialogue structures, or fidelity safeguards for the lightweight LLM to deliver the three layers without conversational drift, nor on how 'daily calibrated exposure sessions' would be implemented or evaluated on-device without data egress or external validation.

    Authors: The abstract is a high-level summary and the current manuscript provides only architectural overviews rather than concrete implementation specifications. We acknowledge this gap limits reproducibility and deployment feasibility. In the revised version we will add a dedicated implementation subsection describing: synthetic dialogue datasets grounded in dependent origination scripts, parameter-efficient fine-tuning for on-device models, prompt-engineering and output-filtering safeguards against layer drift, and fully local session calibration using on-device completion metrics and self-report scales with no external data transfer. This will directly address the referee's concerns about fidelity and on-device operation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: framework proposal contains no derivations, equations, or fitted parameters that reduce to inputs.

full rationale

The manuscript is a descriptive proposal for an on-device LLM framework implementing dependent origination practices for PTSD. It asserts that three observation layers produce progressively deeper prefrontal engagement and LTD-mediated pathway weakening, but supplies no equations, parameter fits, or derivation chain. No self-citations are used to justify a uniqueness theorem or ansatz; the text does not rename known results or call fitted quantities predictions. The central claim is presented as a hypothesis requiring future empirical validation rather than a result derived from prior steps within the paper. This matches the default case of a self-contained non-mathematical proposal with score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The proposal rests on domain assumptions about Hebbian learning and long-term depression in PTSD pathways plus the efficacy of the dependent origination framework when mediated by LLM dialogue. No free parameters or invented physical entities are introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Traumatic contact events encode over-reactive neural pathways through Hebbian long-term potentiation, producing hair-triggered amygdala-HPA stress cascades that fire before conscious awareness.
    Stated as the fundamental mechanism of PTSD in the opening paragraph of the abstract.
  • domain assumption The precise moment between the pre-cognitive affective signal and the reactive elaboration is the site where upstream pathway dissolution can occur.
    Central premise of the therapeutic intervention model presented in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • MindGap framework with three observation layers no independent evidence
    purpose: To deliver structured neuroplastic rehabilitation via on-device LLM sessions targeting the feeling tone gap.
    The specific three-layer protocol and its mapping to prefrontal engagement and LTD is introduced by the paper.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5895 in / 1615 out tokens · 26107 ms · 2026-06-30T20:41:12.419540+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MindGap: A Conversational AI Framework for Upstream Neuroplastic Intervention in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z4JXM3OQ

@misc{pith2026260514660,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MindGap: A Conversational AI Framework for Upstream Neuroplastic Intervention in Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z4JXM3OQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.14660}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is fundamentally a neuroplastic problem traumatic contact events encode over-reactive neural pathways through Hebbian long-term potentiation, producing hair-triggered amygdala-HPA stress cascades that fire before conscious awareness can intercept them. Existing therapeutic approaches, prolonged exposure, EMDR, cognitive behavioural therapy, operate predominantly downstream of the reactive cascade, teaching patients to tolerate or reframe distress after it has arisen. While clinically valuable, these suppression-based approaches do not produce the upstream pathway dissolution that constitutes lasting structural neural reorganisation. This paper proposes MindGap, a privacy-preserving on-device conversational AI framework that delivers structured neuroplastic rehabilitation for PTSD through the practice of dependent origination, a Buddhist psychological framework that identifies the precise moment between the pre-cognitive affective signal and the reactive elaboration that follows as the site of therapeutic intervention. MindGap guides patients through three progressive layers of observation at this feeling tone gap: noticing the bare affective signal before reactive elaboration, recognising it as self-arising rather than caused by the stimulus, and recognising the conditioned implicit belief beneath the feeling. Each layer corresponds to progressively deeper prefrontal regulatory engagement and progressively deeper long-term depression-mediated weakening of the reactive pathway, producing genuine upstream dissolution rather than downstream suppression. Running entirely on-device with no data egress, MindGap delivers daily calibrated exposure sessions through a fine-tuned lightweight large language model, making it deployable in sensitive clinical and military contexts where cloud-based solutions are not permitted.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.14660 by Amin Hass, Anita H. Clayton, Asanga Gunaratna, Atmaram Yarlagadda, Chalani Rajapakse, Christopher K. Rhea, Eranga Bandara, Isurunima Kularathna, Kasun De Zoysa, Ng Wee Keong, Nihal Siriwardanagea, Pramoda Karunarathna, Preston Samuel, Ravi Mukkamala, Ross Gore, Sachini Rajapakse, Sachin Shetty, Shaifali Kaushik, Wathsala Herath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PTSD as neuroplastic encoding. Both normal and traumatic contact events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Upstream vs downstream intervention in the PTSD reactive cascade. MindGap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The dependent origination chain in PTSD. Trauma-encoded implicit beliefs and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MindGap system architecture. All four components run on-device with zero [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MindGap stimulus calibration ladder. Six intensity levels progress from concep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MindGap daily practice session flow. Each session proceeds from check-in and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: MindGap onboarding and intake (Screens 1–2). The patient enters through [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: MindGap daily practice journey (Screens 3–5). The daily check-in establishes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: MindGap progress review and weekly deep sessions (Screens 6–7). The weekly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The dependent origination chain in Marcus’s early sessions versus month two. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Agent-patient dialogue across three stages of MindGap practice. Stage 1 (Week [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    R. C. Kessler, et al., Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, Archives of General Psychiatry 62 (2005) 593–602

    work page 2005

  2. [2]

    J. I. Bisson, et al., Post-traumatic stress disorder, BMJ 351 (2015)

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    R. K. Pitman, et al., Biological studies of post-traumatic stress disorder, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 13 (2012) 769–787

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    Liberzon, J

    I. Liberzon, J. L. Abelson, Context processing and the neuroscience of psychiatric disorders, Neuron 87 (2015) 486–503

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    D. O. Hebb, The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological The- ory, Wiley, New York, 1949

    work page 1949

  6. [6]

    A. L. Mahan, K. J. Ressler, Fear conditioning, synaptic plasticity and the amygdala, Trends in Neurosciences 35 (2012) 24–35. 42

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    A. F. T. Arnsten, Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cor- tex structure and function, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10 (6) (2009) 410–422

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    R. C. Malenka, M. F. Bear, LTP and LTD: An embarrassment of riches, Neuron 44 (1) (2004) 5–21

    work page 2004

  9. [9]

    Citri, R

    A. Citri, R. C. Malenka, Synaptic plasticity: Multiple forms, functions, and mechanisms, Neuropsychopharmacology 33 (1) (2008) 18–41

    work page 2008

  10. [10]

    E. B. Foa, et al., Prolonged exposure therapy for PTSD, Oxford Uni- versity Press (2007)

    work page 2007

  11. [11]

    Shapiro, Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Guilford Press (2001)

    F. Shapiro, Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, Guilford Press (2001)

    work page 2001

  12. [12]

    Ehlers, D

    A. Ehlers, D. M. Clark, A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress dis- order, Behaviour Research and Therapy 38 (2000) 319–345

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Department of Veterans Affairs, PTSD: National Center for PTSD (2017)

    U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, PTSD: National Center for PTSD (2017). URLhttps://www.ptsd.va.gov

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    M. G. Craske, et al., Maximizing exposure therapy, Behaviour Research and Therapy 58 (2014) 10–23

    work page 2014

  15. [15]

    An¯ alayo, Satipat.t.h¯ ana: The Direct Path to Realization, Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, 2003

    B. An¯ alayo, Satipat.t.h¯ ana: The Direct Path to Realization, Windhorse Publications, Birmingham, 2003

    work page 2003

  16. [16]

    J. E. LeDoux, The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996

    work page 1996

  17. [17]

    K. N. Ochsner, J. J. Gross, The cognitive control of emotion, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9 (5) (2005) 242–249

    work page 2005

  18. [18]

    B. K. H¨ olzel, J. Carmody, M. Vangel, C. Congleton, S. M. Yerramsetti, T. Gard, S. W. Lazar, Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density, Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 191 (1) (2011) 36–43

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    R. J. Davidson, S. Begley, The Emotional Life of Your Brain, Hudson Street Press, New York, 2012. 43

    work page 2012

  20. [20]

    A practical guide for designing, developing, and deploying production- grade agentic ai workflows

    E. Bandara, R. Gore, P. Foytik, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, A. Rahman, X. Liang, S. H. Bouk, A. Hass, S. Rajapakse, et al., A practical guide for designing, developing, and deploying production-grade agentic ai work- flows, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.08769 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A practical guide to agentic ai transition in organizations

    E. Bandara, R. Gore, S. Shetty, S. Rajapakse, I. Kularathna, P. Karunarathna, R. Mukkamala, P. Foytik, S. H. Bouk, A. Rahman, et al., A practical guide to agentic ai transition in organizations, arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10122 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    G. M. Lucas, et al., It’s only a computer, Computers in Human Behavior 37 (2014) 94–100

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    URLhttps://woebot.io

    Woebot Health, Woebot: your mental health ally (2017). URLhttps://woebot.io

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Astride: A security threat modeling platform for agentic-ai applications

    E. Bandara, A. Hass, R. Gore, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, S. H. Bouk, X. Liang, N. W. Keong, K. De Zoysa, A. Withanage, et al., Astride: A security threat modeling platform for agentic-ai applications, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.04785 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Bandara, R

    E. Bandara, R. Gore, A. Yarlagadda, A. H. Clayton, P. Samuel, C. K. Rhea, S. Shetty, Standardization of psychiatric diagnoses–role of fine- tuned llm consortium and openai-gpt-oss reasoning llm enabled decision support system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25588 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    L. F. Barrett, How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain (2017)

    work page 2017

  27. [27]

    D. M. Fresco, et al., Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire, Behavior Therapy 38 (2007) 234–246

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    J. D. Teasdale, et al., Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70 (2002) 275–287

    work page 2002

  29. [29]

    Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Sam

    B. Bodhi, The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Sam. yutta Nik¯ aya, Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2000

    work page 2000

  30. [30]

    F. J. Varela, E. Thompson, E. Rosch, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991. 44

    work page 1991

  31. [31]

    J. A. Brewer, P. D. Worhunsky, J. R. Gray, Y.-Y. Tang, J. Weber, H. Kober, Meditation experience is associated with differences in default mode network activity and connectivity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (50) (2011) 20254–20259

    work page 2011

  32. [32]

    J. A. Brewer, H. M. Elwafi, J. H. Davis, Craving to quit: Psychological models and neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness training as treat- ment for addictions, Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 27 (2) (2013) 366–379

    work page 2013

  33. [33]

    K. K. Fitzpatrick, et al., Delivering cognitive behavior therapy to young adults with symptoms of depression and anxiety using a fully automated conversational agent, JMIR Mental Health 4 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Inkster, et al., An empathy-driven, conversational ai agent for digital mental well-being, JMIR mHealth and uHealth 6 (2018)

    B. Inkster, et al., An empathy-driven, conversational ai agent for digital mental well-being, JMIR mHealth and uHealth 6 (2018)

    work page 2018

  35. [35]

    Skjuve, et al., My chatbot companion, Computers in Human Behav- ior 114 (2021)

    M. Skjuve, et al., My chatbot companion, Computers in Human Behav- ior 114 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    A. S. Rizzo, et al., Ptsd and the virtual iraq/afghanistan system, Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation 3 (2010)

    work page 2010

  37. [37]

    Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone

    M. Abdin, et al., Phi-3 technical report, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14219 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Gemma Team, Gemma: open models based on gemini research, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    The Llama 3 Herd of Models

    A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Yang, A. Fan, et al., The llama 3 herd of models, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Becattini, R

    M. Becattini, R. Verdecchia, E. Vicario, Sallma: A software architecture for llm-based multi-agent systems

    work page

  41. [41]

    Dettmers, et al., Qlora: efficient finetuning of quantized llms, NeurIPS (2023)

    T. Dettmers, et al., Qlora: efficient finetuning of quantized llms, NeurIPS (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Bandara, A

    E. Bandara, A. Hass, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, R. Gore, A. Rahman, S. H. Bouk, Deep-stride: Automated security threat modeling with 45 vision-language models, in: 2025 International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), 2025, pp. 1– 7

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Toward Zero-Egress Psychiatric AI: On-Device LLM Deployment for Privacy-Preserving Mental Health Decision Support

    E. Bandara, A. Gunaratna, R. Gore, A. H. Clayton, C. K. Rhea, S. Rajapakse, I. Kularathna, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, X. Liang, et al., Toward zero-egress psychiatric ai: On-device llm deployment for privacy-preserving mental health decision support, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18302 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    Yang, et al., Mentalllama: interpretable mental health analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13567 (2024)

    K. Yang, et al., Mentalllama: interpretable mental health analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13567 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Standardization of neuromuscular reflex analysis– role of fine-tuned vision-language model consortium and openai gpt- oss reasoning llm enabled decision support system

    E. Bandara, R. Gore, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, C. Rhea, A. Yarlagadda, S. Kaushik, L. De Silva, A. Maznychenko, I. Sokolowska, et al., Stan- dardization of neuromuscular reflex analysis–role of fine-tuned vision- language model consortium and openai gpt-oss reasoning llm enabled decision support system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12473 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    R. B. Zajonc, Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences, American Psychologist 35 (2) (1980) 151–175

    work page 1980

  47. [47]

    R. Gore, E. Bandara, S. Shetty, A. E. Musto, P. Rana, A. Valencia- Romero, C. Rhea, L. Tayebi, H. Richter, A. Yarlagadda, et al., Proof- of-tbi–fine-tuned vision language model consortium and openai-o3 rea- soning llm-based medical diagnosis support system for mild traumatic brain injury (tbi) prediction, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.18671 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Towards responsible and explainable ai agents with consensus-driven reasoning

    E. Bandara, T. Hewa, R. Gore, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, P. Foytik, A. Rahman, S. H. Bouk, X. Liang, A. Hass, et al., Towards respon- sible and explainable ai agents with consensus-driven reasoning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.21699 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    A. R. Damasio, Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Putnam, New York, 1994

    work page 1994

  50. [50]

    E. R. Kandel, J. H. Schwartz, T. M. Jessell, S. A. Siegelbaum, A. J. Hudspeth, Principles of Neural Science, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2013. 46

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    M. E. Raichle, A. M. MacLeod, A. Z. Snyder, W. J. Powers, D. A. Gusnard, G. L. Shulman, A default mode of brain function, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2) (2001) 676–682

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    Ogden, K

    P. Ogden, K. Minton, C. Pain, Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy, W. W. Norton, 2006

    work page 2006

  53. [53]

    AI Trust OS -- A Continuous Governance Framework for Autonomous AI Observability and Zero-Trust Compliance in Enterprise Environments

    E. Bandara, A. Gunaratna, R. Gore, A. Rahman, R. Mukkamala, S. Shetty, S. Rajapakse, I. Kularathna, P. Foytik, S. H. Bouk, et al., Ai trust os–a continuous governance framework for autonomous ai ob- servability and zero-trust compliance in enterprise environments, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.04749 (2026). 47

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026