pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.19973 · v4 · pith:3VG2ECZPnew · submitted 2025-10-22 · 💻 cs.NI · cs.AI

A Tutorial on Cognitive Biases in Agentic AI-Driven 6G Autonomous Networks

Hatim Chergui , Farhad Rezazadeh , Merouane Debbah , Christos Verikoukis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 04:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI cs.AI
keywords cognitive biasesagentic AI6G networksresource negotiationenergy efficiencylatency constraintsanchoring biasLLM agents
0
0 comments X

The pith

LLM agents in 6G networks double energy savings by replacing fixed anchors with Truncated Weibull randomization to remove anchoring bias.

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

The paper establishes that cognitive biases from human psychology appear in LLM-powered agents managing 6G network resources and can be dismantled through targeted strategies. In inter-slice negotiation, agents using a Truncated Weibull randomized anchor instead of fixed heuristics consume SLA slack more intelligently. In RAN-Edge negotiation, an unbiased collective memory with decay and inflection bonuses prevents over-reliance on recent data or repeated errors. These changes produce concrete gains: up to 25 percent peak energy savings without latency violations, plus fivefold latency reduction and 40 percent extra savings in the second case. A reader would care because the methods show how agentic AI can move 6G systems toward genuine autonomy while respecting strict performance bounds.

Core claim

Replacing fixed heuristic anchors with a Truncated Weibull randomized anchor strategy dismantles rigid anchoring bias in inter-slice resource negotiation. Locally hosted 1B-parameter models achieve sub-second inference. The agents intelligently consume SLA slack and dynamically double system-wide energy savings, peaking at 25 percent, without violating strict latency limits. In RAN-Edge cross-domain negotiation, semantic and temporal decay plus an inflection bonus that highlights past failures create an unbiased collective memory. This prevents over-reliance on recent data and repetition of mistakes, yielding highly robust agreements with fivefold latency reduction and roughly 40 percent更高能量

What carries the argument

Truncated Weibull randomized anchor strategy for inter-slice negotiation and unbiased collective memory with semantic/temporal decay plus inflection bonus for RAN-Edge negotiation.

If this is right

  • Agents can negotiate resource allocations across slices while respecting SLA constraints and still extract additional energy efficiency.
  • Local deployment of small-parameter models enables near-real-time bias mitigation compatible with 6G timing requirements.
  • Debiased historical memory produces more stable cross-domain agreements that reduce both latency and energy use.
  • System-wide energy savings scale with the removal of anchoring and confirmation biases rather than with changes in the underlying optimization objective.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same bias-mitigation pattern could be tested in other multi-agent settings such as edge computing task offloading or spectrum sharing.
  • If the transfer of human-style biases holds, similar randomization and memory-decay techniques may improve reliability of LLM agents in non-telecom domains like logistics or power-grid control.
  • Longer-term deployments could measure whether the energy gains persist when network traffic patterns shift away from the training distribution.

Load-bearing premise

Cognitive biases documented in human psychology and general LLM behavior transfer directly to the decision loops of LLM agents that negotiate inter-slice and RAN-Edge resources in 6G systems.

What would settle it

A side-by-side run of the inter-slice negotiation use-case in which the Truncated Weibull randomized anchor produces no measurable increase in energy savings or causes latency violations compared with fixed-heuristic baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19973 by Christos Verikoukis, Farhad Rezazadeh, Hatim Chergui, Merouane Debbah.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Typical components of a 6G agentic system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Anchoring bias in 6G agentic negotiation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Availability bias concept. and Planning, in which the agent’s negotiation strategy rigidly adheres to a small deviation from the first received proposal (the anchor), making insufficient counter-proposals even when DT simulations indicate that a much bolder counter-offer would achieve a significantly better performance-to-cost trade-off for its domain (e.g., lower latency); and iii) Tool Use, where the age… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Suggestion Bias shifts the agent’s decision in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Framing effect concept. 9) Framing Effect: When equivalent inputs yield different decisions since decisions are influenced by how the information is presented (e.g., as a gain or a loss, or with specific emphasis): a(ϕ(x)) ̸= a(ψ(x)) even if ϕ(x) ∼ ψ(x). (12) For instance, PRB usage framed as “20% free” vs “80% used” changes allocation as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Use-case 1 setup. IV. USE CASE 1: MITIGATING ANCHORING BIAS IN NETWORK SLICING AGENTIC NEGOTIATION A. Setup We study the mitigation of anchoring bias in a 6G system by focusing on the dynamic allocation of the shared RAN bandwidth (50 MHz) between the eMBB and URLLC network slices as depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of distance to anchor vs slices and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Latency CDF vs slices and scenarios. as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Memory architecture with temporal and confirmation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Ratio of retrieved strategies over T = 30 trials. w/ memory w/ unbiased memory Memory Scenario 0 5 10 15 20 Age (time stpdf) Avg: 3.33 Std: 1.98 Avg: 10.07 Std: 12.05 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Age of retrieved strategies vs scenarios over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Latency and energy saving over T = 30 trials. 2) Validation: Our simulations demonstrate that the unbi￾ased memory plays a critical role in shaping agent learning and negotiation dynamics. Unlike baseline setups, i.e., memoryless or vanilla memory, the primary advantage of the unbiased memory is not minimizing latency or maximizing energy savings, but fostering robustness and reliable behavior by mitigati… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The path to higher network autonomy in 6G lies beyond the mere optimization of key performance indicators (KPIs), requiring systems that perceive and reason over the network environment as it is. This can be achieved through agentic AI, where large language model (LLM)-powered agents utilize multimodal telemetry, memory, and cross-domain negotiation to achieve multi-objective goals. However, deploying such agents introduces cognitive biases inherited from human design, which can severely distort reasoning and actuation. This paper provides a comprehensive tutorial on well-known cognitive biases, detailing their taxonomy, mathematical formulation, emergence in telecom systems, and tailored mitigation strategies. We validate these concepts through two distinct use-cases in 6G management. First, we tackle anchoring bias in inter-slice resource negotiation. To overcome the prohibitive execution delays of cloud-based LLMs, this use-case deploys a locally hosted 1B-parameter model on an RTX A4000 GPU, successfully achieving sub-second inference latencies compatible with near-real-time operations. By replacing fixed heuristic anchors with a Truncated Weibull randomized anchor strategy, the agents dismantle rigid biases, intelligently consume SLA slack, and dynamically double the system-wide energy savings (peaking at 25\%) without violating strict latency limits. Second, we mitigate temporal and confirmation biases in RAN-Edge cross-domain negotiation by designing an unbiased collective memory. By integrating semantic/temporal decay and an inflection bonus that actively highlights past negotiation failures, agents are prevented from over-relying on recent data or repeating past mistakes. Grounding decisions in this richer, debiased historical context yields highly robust agreements, achieving a $\times 5$ latency reduction and roughly 40\% higher energy savings compared to memoryless baselines.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a tutorial on cognitive biases in LLM-powered agentic AI for 6G autonomous networks. It presents a taxonomy of biases, their mathematical formulations, emergence in telecom decision loops, and mitigation strategies. Validation occurs via two use-cases: (1) anchoring bias in inter-slice SLA negotiation, where a locally hosted 1B-parameter model on RTX A4000 achieves sub-second inference by replacing fixed anchors with a Truncated Weibull randomized strategy, claiming doubled energy savings peaking at 25% while respecting latency; (2) temporal and confirmation biases in RAN-Edge cross-domain negotiation, mitigated via unbiased collective memory with semantic/temporal decay and inflection bonus, claiming 5x latency reduction and ~40% higher energy savings versus memoryless baselines.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, the work could meaningfully advance reliable agentic systems in 6G by synthesizing human/LLM bias literature for network management contexts and demonstrating practical local-LLM deployments compatible with near-real-time operations. The emphasis on collective memory with decay mechanisms offers a concrete architectural suggestion. As a tutorial, its value lies in structured synthesis and illustrative simulations rather than novel theoretical derivations or large-scale field trials.

major comments (3)
  1. [Use-case 1 description] In the first use-case (anchoring bias mitigation), the central claim that the Truncated Weibull randomized anchor 'dismantles rigid biases' and doubles energy savings to 25% is presented without equations defining the bias model, without error bars on the reported gains, and without an ablation isolating Weibull randomization from generic stochastic anchoring or SLA-slack consumption. This directly undermines attribution of the performance improvement to bias reduction per se.
  2. [LLM deployment and inference section] No details are provided on the prompting strategy, system prompt, temperature settings, or any fine-tuning applied to the 1B-parameter model. This omission is load-bearing for the reproducibility of the sub-second inference latency and the reported negotiation outcomes in inter-slice resource allocation.
  3. [Use-case 2 description] In the second use-case, the unbiased collective memory with semantic decay and inflection bonus is credited for 40% higher energy savings and 5x latency reduction, yet the manuscript supplies neither explicit bias metrics extracted from agent decision traces (pre- vs. post-mitigation) nor a comparison against a generic randomization baseline. The attribution to bias mitigation therefore remains unsupported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and use-case sections] The abstract states that the tutorial includes 'mathematical formulation' of biases, but the use-case sections do not cross-reference specific equations or definitions from the earlier taxonomy sections, leaving the connection between theory and implementation unclear.
  2. [Notation and terminology] Notation for terms such as 'SLA slack', 'inflection bonus', and 'semantic decay' is introduced without explicit definitions or pointers to the relevant tutorial subsection, reducing readability for readers outside the immediate subfield.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive suggestions. We will make revisions to improve the clarity, reproducibility, and evidential support for our claims in the manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to the major comments are as follows.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: In the first use-case (anchoring bias mitigation), the central claim that the Truncated Weibull randomized anchor 'dismantles rigid biases' and doubles energy savings to 25% is presented without equations defining the bias model, without error bars on the reported gains, and without an ablation isolating Weibull randomization from generic stochastic anchoring or SLA-slack consumption. This directly undermines attribution of the performance improvement to bias reduction per se.

    Authors: We agree that providing the mathematical formulation of the anchoring bias model would strengthen the manuscript. We will add explicit equations describing how anchoring bias manifests in the inter-slice SLA negotiation process. The energy savings figures are derived from multiple simulation runs, and we will include error bars or confidence intervals in the revised figures to indicate variability. Furthermore, we will incorporate an ablation study comparing the Truncated Weibull strategy against a generic stochastic anchoring approach (e.g., uniform random selection within SLA bounds) to better isolate the benefits attributable to bias mitigation. These additions will clarify the attribution of the observed doubling of energy savings to the proposed method. revision: yes

  2. Referee: No details are provided on the prompting strategy, system prompt, temperature settings, or any fine-tuning applied to the 1B-parameter model. This omission is load-bearing for the reproducibility of the sub-second inference latency and the reported negotiation outcomes in inter-slice resource allocation.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of these details for reproducibility. In the revised manuscript, we will include a new subsection under the use-case description that specifies the system prompt employed for the local 1B-parameter LLM, the temperature parameter used during inference (set to 0.6 for balanced creativity and determinism), and confirm that the model was deployed without additional fine-tuning, relying on its pre-trained capabilities for the negotiation task. This will enable readers to replicate the sub-second inference results on similar hardware. revision: yes

  3. Referee: In the second use-case, the unbiased collective memory with semantic decay and inflection bonus is credited for 40% higher energy savings and 5x latency reduction, yet the manuscript supplies neither explicit bias metrics extracted from agent decision traces (pre- vs. post-mitigation) nor a comparison against a generic randomization baseline. The attribution to bias mitigation therefore remains unsupported.

    Authors: We concur that explicit bias metrics would provide stronger support for the claims. We will add quantitative measures of bias, such as the average deviation in decision traces from unbiased optima before and after applying the collective memory mechanism. Additionally, we will include a baseline comparison using a memory with generic randomization (without semantic decay or inflection bonus) to demonstrate that the specific design elements contribute to the reported 5x latency reduction and energy savings improvements. These enhancements will better substantiate the role of bias mitigation in the performance gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results obtained from independent simulation runs of proposed strategies

full rationale

The paper is a tutorial that introduces cognitive bias concepts and then demonstrates mitigation via two simulation-based use-cases. The reported gains (e.g., doubled energy savings peaking at 25%, x5 latency reduction) are presented as outcomes of running the Truncated Weibull anchor strategy and debiased collective memory on agent negotiation scenarios. No algebraic derivation chain is shown that reduces the final performance numbers to quantities already fitted or defined in the same paper or prior self-citations. The central claims rest on empirical simulation results rather than self-referential definitions or fitted inputs renamed as predictions. This is the most common honest non-finding for simulation-driven papers.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the premise that LLM agents inherit human cognitive biases and that these can be mitigated by statistical randomization and memory decay rules; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Truncated Weibull shape and scale parameters
    The randomized anchor strategy requires distribution parameters whose specific values are not stated in the abstract and may have been selected to produce the reported gains.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption LLM-powered agents exhibit anchoring, temporal, and confirmation biases when performing network resource negotiation
    Invoked when the paper states that deploying such agents introduces cognitive biases inherited from human design.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5854 in / 1368 out tokens · 44465 ms · 2026-05-18T04:23:33.565000+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. LLM-Based Agentic Negotiation for 6G: Addressing Uncertainty Neglect and Tail-Event Risk

    cs.NI 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    A CVaR-aware agentic framework for 6G network slicing eliminates URLLC SLA violations by shifting LLM decisions from mean latency to tail-risk distributions predicted by digital twins.

  2. Beyond State Machines: Executing Network Procedures with Agentic Tool-Calling Sequences

    cs.NI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    LLM agents execute network procedures via tool sequences; single-tool encapsulation cuts latency and errors compared with iterative reasoning, but all models lose reliability as procedure length grows.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Autonomous networks: Exploring the evolution from level 0 to level 5,

    TM Forum, “Autonomous networks: Exploring the evolution from level 0 to level 5,” TM Forum, Tech. Rep., Dec. 2021, technical Report

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Problems of monetary management: The uk experience,

    C. A. Goodhart, “Problems of monetary management: The uk experience,” Papers in Monetary Economics, 1975

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    J. Z. Müller,The Tyranny of Metrics. Princeton University Press, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases,”Science, vol. 185, no. 4157, pp. 1124–1131, 1974

    work page 1974

  5. [5]

    Mindscope: Exploring cognitive biases in large language models through multi-agent systems,

    Z. Xie, J. Zhao, Y . Wang, J. Shi, Y . Bai, X. Wu, and L. He, “Mindscope: Exploring cognitive biases in large language models through multi-agent systems,” inEuropean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Mindscope: Exploring cognitive biases in large language models through multi-agent systems,

    ——, “Mindscope: Exploring cognitive biases in large language models through multi-agent systems,” inEuropean Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Unmasking conversational bias in ai multiagent systems,

    E. Coppolillo, G. Manco, and L. M. Aiello, “Unmasking conversational bias in ai multiagent systems,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2501.14844, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:275920669

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Fairness in agentic ai: A unified framework for ethical and equitable multi-agent system,

    R. Ranjan, S. Gupta, and S. N. Singh, “Fairness in agentic ai: A unified framework for ethical and equitable multi-agent system,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2502.07254, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:276258615

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Systematic Failures in Collective Reasoning under Distributed Information in Multi-Agent LLMs

    Y . Li, A. Naito, and H. Shirado, “Assessing collective reasoning in multi- agent llms via hidden profile tasks,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2505.11556, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:278740825

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Llm-based edge intelligence: A comprehensive sur- vey on architectures, applications, security and trustworthiness,

    O. Friha, M. A. Ferrag, B. Kantarci, B. Cakmak, A. Ozgun, and N. Ghoualmi-Zine, “Llm-based edge intelligence: A comprehensive sur- vey on architectures, applications, security and trustworthiness,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 5799–5856, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    A matching game for llm layer deployment in heterogeneous edge networks,

    B. Picano, D. T. Hoang, and D. N. Nguyen, “A matching game for llm layer deployment in heterogeneous edge networks,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 6, pp. 3795–3805, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Links: Large language model integrated management for 6g empowered digital twin networks,

    S. Jiang, B. Lin, Y . Wu, and Y . Gao, “Links: Large language model integrated management for 6g empowered digital twin networks,” inProc. 2024 IEEE 100th Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC2024-Fall), 2024, pp. 1–6

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Rivaling transformers: Multi-scale structured state- space mixtures for agentic 6g o-ran,

    F. Rezazadeh, H. Chergui, M. Debbah, H. Song, D. Niyato, and L. Liu, “Rivaling transformers: Multi-scale structured state- space mixtures for agentic 6g o-ran,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05255

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Toward an unbiased collective memory for efficient llm- based agentic 6g cross-domain management,

    H. Chergui, M. C. Cid, P. S. Khodashenas, D. C. Mur, and C. Verikoukis, “Toward an unbiased collective memory for efficient llm- based agentic 6g cross-domain management,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26200

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Framework, use cases and requirements for ai agent protocols,

    J. Rosenberg and C. Jennings, “Framework, use cases and requirements for ai agent protocols,” Internet Engineering Task Force, Internet- Draft draft-rosenberg-ai-protocols-00, May 2025. [Online]. Available: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-rosenberg-ai-protocols-00

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    A survey of inductive reasoning for large language models,

    K. Chen, D. Ruan, Y . Dan, Y . Wang, S. Yan, X. Wu, Y . Zhang, Q. Chen, J. Zhou, L. He, B. Qi, L. Li, Q. Guo, X. Shi, and W. Zhang, “A survey of inductive reasoning for large language models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:282058026

    work page 2025

  17. [17]

    Causal-counterfactual rag: The integration of causal-counterfactual reasoning into rag,

    H. Khadilkar and A. Gupta, “Causal-counterfactual rag: The integration of causal-counterfactual reasoning into rag,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2509.14435,

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 281394465

    [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 281394465

    work page

  19. [19]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    K. Cobbe, V . Kosaraju, M. Bavarian, M. Chen, H. Jun, L. Kaiser, M. Plappert, J. Tworek, J. Hilton, R. Nakano, C. Hesse, and J. Schulman, “Training verifiers to solve math word problems,”CoRR, vol. abs/2110.14168, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2110.14168

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    From LLM Reasoning to Autonomous AI Agents: A Comprehensive Review

    M. A. Ferrag, N. Tihanyi, and M. Debbah, “From llm reasoning to autonomous ai agents: A comprehensive review,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19678

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Blockagents: Towards byzantine-robust llm-based multi-agent coordination via blockchain,

    B. Chen, G. Li, X. Lin, Z. Wang, and J. Li, “Blockagents: Towards byzantine-robust llm-based multi-agent coordination via blockchain,” inProceedings of the ACM Turing Award Celebration Conference - China 2024, ser. ACM-TURC ’24. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2024, pp. 187–192. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3674399.3674445

    work page doi:10.1145/3674399.3674445 2024

  22. [22]

    Wireless multi-agent generative ai: From connected intelligence to collective intelligence,

    H. Zou, Q. Zhao, L. Bariah, M. Bennis, and M. Debbah, “Wireless multi-agent generative ai: From connected intelligence to collective intelligence,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02757

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    When large language model agents meet 6g networks: Perception, grounding, and alignment,

    M. Xu, D. Niyato, J. Kang, Z. Xiong, S. Mao, Z. Han, D. I. Kim, and K. B. Letaief, “When large language model agents meet 6g networks: Perception, grounding, and alignment,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07764

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Towards agentic ai networking in 6g: A generative foundation model-as-agent approach,

    Y . Xia, G. Shi, and P. Zhang, “Towards agentic ai networking in 6g: A generative foundation model-as-agent approach,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.15764, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Lameta: Intent-aware agentic network optimization via a large ai model-empowered two-stage approach,

    Y . Liu, G. Liu, J. Wang, R. Zhang, D. Niyato, G. Sun, Z. Xiong, and Z. Han, “Lameta: Intent-aware agentic network optimization via a large ai model-empowered two-stage approach,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12247, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Towards the autonomous optimization of urban logistics: Training gen- erative ai with scientific tools via agentic digital twins and model context protocol,

    H. Xu, Y . Sun, J. Tupayachi, O. Omitaomu, S. Zlatanov, and X. Li, “Towards the autonomous optimization of urban logistics: Training gen- erative ai with scientific tools via agentic digital twins and model context protocol,” 2025, unpublished manuscript

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Toward agentic ai: Generative information retrieval inspired intelligent communications and networking,

    R. Zhang, S. Tang, Y . Liu, D. Niyato, Z. Xiong, S. Sun, S. Mao, and Z. Han, “Toward agentic ai: Generative information retrieval inspired intelligent communications and networking,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16866, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    End-to-end edge ai service provisioning framework in 6g oran,

    Y . Tang, U. C. Srinivasan, B. J. Scott, O. Umealor, D. Kevogo, and W. Guo, “End-to-end edge ai service provisioning framework in 6g oran,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.11933, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task,

    P. C. Wason, “On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task,”Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 129–140, 1960. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1080/17470216008416717

    work page doi:10.1080/17470216008416717 1960

  30. [30]

    Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises,

    R. S. Nickerson, “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises,”Review of General Psychology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175–220,

    work page

  31. [31]

    Nickerson

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

    work page doi:10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

  32. [32]

    The serial position effect of free recall,

    J. Murdock, Bennet B., “The serial position effect of free recall,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 482–488, 1962. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045106

    work page doi:10.1037/h0045106 1962

  33. [33]

    2011.Thinking, fast and slow

    D. Kahneman,Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.amazon.de/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/ dp/0374275637/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pdT1_nS_nC?ie=UTF8&colid= 151193SNGKJT9&coliid=I3OCESLZCVDFL7

    work page arXiv 2011

  34. [34]

    Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability,”Cognitive Psychology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 207–232, 1973. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/0010028573900339

    work page arXiv 1973

  35. [35]

    Nisbett and L

    R. Nisbett and L. Ross,Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Prentice-Hall, 1980

    work page 1980

  36. [36]

    Behavioral study of obedience,

    S. Milgram, “Behavioral study of obedience,”Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 371–378, 1963. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

    work page doi:10.1037/h0040525 1963

  37. [37]

    A constant error in psychological ratings,

    E. L. Thorndike, “A constant error in psychological ratings,”Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 25–29, 1920. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663

    work page doi:10.1037/h0071663 1920

  38. [38]

    I. L. Janis,Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign- Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1972

    work page 1972

  39. [39]

    A simple model of herd behavior,

    A. V . Banerjee, “A simple model of herd behavior,”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 797–817, 1992. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118364

    work page doi:10.2307/2118364 1992

  40. [40]

    Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence,

    B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic, and S. Lichtenstein, “Knowing with certainty: The appropriateness of extreme confidence,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 552– 564, 1977. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552

    work page doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.552 1977

  41. [41]

    Status quo bias in decision making,

    W. Samuelson and R. Zeckhauser, “Status quo bias in decision making,” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 7–59, 1988. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00055564 1988

  42. [42]

    The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,

    A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice,”Science, vol. 211, no. 4481, pp. 453–458, 1981. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1685855

    work page arXiv 1981

  43. [43]

    Survivorship bias and attrition effects in measures of performance persistence,

    J. N. Carpenter and A. W. Lynch, “Survivorship bias and attrition effects in measures of performance persistence,”Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 337–374, 1999. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304405X99000409

    work page 1999

  44. [44]

    On the specialization of fdrl agents for scalable and distributed 6g ran slicing orchestration,

    F. Rezazadeh, L. Zanzi, F. Devoti, H. Chergui, X. Costa-Perez, and C. Verikoukis, “On the specialization of fdrl agents for scalable and distributed 6g ran slicing orchestration,”IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 3473–3487, 2022

    work page 2022