CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 44Psychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningCognitive Computing and Networks

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Synergistic Integration of Large Language Models and Cognitive Architectures for Robust AI: An Exploratory Analysis

Open access
Romero, Oscar J., Zimmerman, John, Steinfeld, Aaron, Tomasic, Anthony·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2308.09830arXiv 2308.09830
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores the integration of two AI subdisciplines employed in the development of artificial agents that exhibit intelligent behavior: Large Language Models (LLMs) and Cognitive Architectures (CAs). We present three integration approaches, each grounded in theoretical models and supported by preliminary empirical evidence. The modular approach, which introduces four models with varying degrees of integration, makes use of chain-of-thought prompting, and draws inspiration from augmented LLMs, the Common Model of Cognition, and the simulation theory of cognition. The agency approach, motivated by the Society of Mind theory and the LIDA cognitive architecture, proposes the formation of agent collections that interact at micro and macro cognitive levels, driven by either LLMs or symbolic components. The neuro-symbolic approach, which takes inspiration from the CLARION cognitive architecture, proposes a model where bottom-up learning extracts symbolic representations from an LLM layer and top-down guidance utilizes symbolic representations to direct prompt engineering in the LLM layer. These approaches aim to harness the strengths of both LLMs and CAs, while mitigating their weaknesses, thereby advancing the development of more robust AI systems. We discuss the tradeoffs and challenges associated with each approach.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.09830

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The opaqueness of LLMs coupled with inherent randomness makes it challenging to analyze or control their behaviors.

    “This opaqueness coupled with inherent randomness from their probabilistic formulation - makes it challenging to analyze or control their behaviors (Romero et al., 2023; Valmeekam et al., 2022).”

    From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Romero et al., 2023

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes LLM interpretability and consistency issues, calls them stochastic, and notes that they lack detailed reasoning explanations. The Discussion (page unavailable) also says inconsistent LLM outputs can cause errors. These passages support the difficulty of analyzing and controlling behavior, but do not specifically attribute that difficulty to randomness arising from a probabilistic formulation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Researchers have begun to use LLMs within cognitive architectures, leveraging their implicit world knowledge to augment traditional symbolic approaches.

    “Recognizing this, researchers have begun to use LLMs within cognitive architectures, leveraging their implicit world knowledge (Wray et al., 2021) to augment traditional symbolic approaches (Kirk et al., 2023; Romero et al., 2023).”

    From Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents (2023) · cites this paper as Romero et al., 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Anderson, J. R.; and Lebiere, C. J. 2014. The atomic com- ponents of thought. Psychology Press.
  2. Bender, E. M.; Gebru, T.; McMillan-Major, A.; and Shmitchell, S. 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Par- rots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceed- ings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, 610-623. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450383097.
  3. Binz, M.; and Schulz, E. 2023. Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(6): e2218523120.
  4. Bubeck, S.; Chandrasekaran, V.; Eldan, R.; Gehrke, J.; Horvitz, E.; Kamar, E.; Lee, P.; Lee, Y. T.; Li, Y.; Lundberg, S.; Nori, H.; Palangi, H.; Ribeiro, M. T.; and Zhang, Y. 2023. Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. arXiv:2303.12712. · arXiv
  5. Caufield, J. H.; Hegde, H.; Emonet, V.; Harris, N. L.; Joachimiak, M. P.; Matentzoglu, N.; Kim, H.; Moxon, S. A.; Reese, J. T.; Haendel, M. A.; et al. 2023. Structured prompt interrogation and recursive extraction of semantics (SPIRES): A method for populating knowledge bases using zero-shot learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02711. · arXiv
  6. Devlin, J.; Chang, M.-W.; Lee, K.; and Toutanova, K. 2019. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technolo- gies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), 4171-4186. Min- neapolis, Minnesota: Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  7. Diao, S.; Wang, P.; Lin, Y.; and Zhang, T. 2023. Ac- tive Prompting with Chain-of-Thought for Large Language Models. arXiv:2302.12246. · arXiv
  8. Du, Y.; Li, S.; Torralba, A.; Tenenbaum, J. B.; and Mor- datch, I. 2023. Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Lan- guage Models through Multiagent Debate. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325. · arXiv
  9. Gao, L.; Madaan, A.; Zhou, S.; Alon, U.; Liu, P.; Yang, Y.; Callan, J.; and Neubig, G. 2023. PAL: Program-aided Lan- guage Models. arXiv:2211.10435. · arXiv
  10. Huang, X.; Ruan, W.; Huang, W.; Jin, G.; Dong, Y.; Wu, C.; Bensalem, S.; Mu, R.; Qi, Y.; Zhao, X.; Cai, K.; Zhang, Y.; Wu, S.; Xu, P.; Wu, D.; Freitas, A.; and Mustafa, M. A. 2023. A Survey of Safety and Trustworthiness of Large Lan- guage Models through the Lens of Verification and Valida- tion. arXiv:2305.11391. · arXiv
  11. Kosinski, M. 2023. Theory of Mind May Have Spontaneously Emerged in Large Language Models. arXiv:2302.02083. · arXiv
  12. Kotseruba, I.; and Tsotsos, J. K. 2020. 40 years of cognitive architectures: core cognitive abilities and practical applica- tions. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(1): 17-94.
  13. Laird, J. E. 2019. The Soar cognitive architecture. MIT press.
  14. Laird, J. E.; Lebiere, C.; and Rosenbloom, P. S. 2017. A Standard Model of the Mind: Toward a Common Compu- tational Framework across Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, and Robotics. AI Magazine, 38(4): 13-26.
  15. LeCun, Y. 2022. A path towards autonomous machine intel- ligence version 0.9. 2, 2022-06-27. Open Review, 62.
  16. Li, S.; Puig, X.; Paxton, C.; Du, Y.; Wang, C.; Fan, L.; Chen, T.; Huang, D.; Akyürek, E.; Anandkumar, A.; Andreas, J.; Mordatch, I.; Torralba, A.; and Zhu, Y. 2022. Pre-Trained Language Models for Interactive Decision-Making. CoRR, abs/2202.01771. · arXiv
  17. Marcus, G. 2020. The Next Decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligence. CoRR, abs/2002.06177. · arXiv
  18. Mialon, G.; Dessì, R.; Lomeli, M.; Nalmpantis, C.; Pa- sunuru, R.; Raileanu, R.; Rozière, B.; Schick, T.; Dwivedi- Yu, J.; Celikyilmaz, A.; Grave, E.; LeCun, Y.; and Scialom, T. 2023. Augmented Language Models: a Survey. arXiv:2302.07842. · arXiv
  19. Park, J. S.; O'Brien, J. C.; Cai, C. J.; Morris, M. R.; Liang, P.; and Bernstein, M. S. 2023. Generative Agents: Interac- tive Simulacra of Human Behavior. arXiv:2304.03442. · arXiv
  20. Pavlick, E. 2023. Symbols and grounding in large language models. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 381(2251): 20220041.
  21. Qian, J.; Wang, H.; Li, Z.; Li, S.; and Yan, X. 2022. Limita- tions of language models in arithmetic and symbolic induc- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05051. · arXiv
  22. Romero, O. J.; Wang, A.; Zimmerman, J.; Steinfeld, A.; and Tomasic, A. 2021. A Task-Oriented Dialogue Architecture via Transformer Neural Language Models and Symbolic In- jection. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue, 438- 444. Singapore and Online: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  23. Schick, T.; Dwivedi-Yu, J.; Dessì, R.; Raileanu, R.; Lomeli, M.; Zettlemoyer, L.; Cancedda, N.; and Scialom, T. 2023. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. arXiv:2302.04761. · arXiv
  24. Scialom et al., T. 2022. Fine-tuned language models are con- tinual learners. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6107- 6122.
  25. Shanahan, M. 2006. A cognitive architecture that combines internal simulation with a global workspace. Consciousness and cognition, 15(2): 433-449.
  26. Sun, R. 2016. Anatomy of the mind: exploring psycholog- ical mechanisms and processes with the Clarion cognitive architecture. Oxford University Press.
  27. Romero, O. J.; Zimmerman, J.; and Steinfeld, A. 2021. Propositional Reasoning via Neural Transformer Language Models. Int. Workshop on Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning (NESY).
  28. Venkit, P. N.; Srinath, M.; and Wilson, S. 2022. A Study of Implicit Bias in Pretrained Language Models against Peo- ple with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 29th Inter- national Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1324- 1332. Gyeongju, Republic of Korea: International Commit- tee on Computational Linguistics.
  29. Wang, G.; Xie, Y.; Jiang, Y.; Mandlekar, A.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, Y.; Fan, L.; and Anandkumar, A. 2023. Voyager: An open- ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291. · arXiv
  30. Wei, J.; Wang, X.; Schuurmans, D.; Bosma, M.; Chi, E. H.; Le, Q.; and Zhou, D. 2022. Chain of Thought Prompt- ing Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. CoRR, abs/2201.11903. · arXiv
  31. Weidinger, L.; Uesato, J.; Rauh, M.; Griffin, C.; Huang, P.- S.; Mellor, J.; Glaese, A.; Cheng, M.; Balle, B.; Kasirzadeh, A.; Biles, C.; Brown, S.; Kenton, Z.; Hawkins, W.; Steple- ton, T.; Birhane, A.; Hendricks, L. A.; Rimell, L.; Isaac, W.; Haas, J.; Legassick, S.; Irving, G.; and Gabriel, I. 2022. Tax- onomy of Risks Posed by Language Models. In Proceed- ings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, FAccT '22, 214-229. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450393522.
  32. Welleck, S.; Kulikov, I.; Roller, S.; Dinan, E.; Cho, K.; and Weston, J. 2019. Neural text generation with unlikelihood training. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.04319. · arXiv
  33. Xie, Y.; Xie, T.; Lin, M.; Wei, W.; Li, C.; Kong, B.; Chen, L.; Zhuo, C.; Hu, B.; and Li, Z. 2023. OlaGPT: Empow- ering LLMs With Human-like Problem-Solving Abilities. arXiv:2305.16334. · arXiv
  34. Yao, S.; Yu, D.; Zhao, J.; Shafran, I.; Griffiths, T. L.; Cao, Y.; and Narasimhan, K. 2023a. Tree of Thoughts: De- liberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.10601. · arXiv
  35. Yao, S.; Zhao, J.; Yu, D.; Du, N.; Shafran, I.; Narasimhan, K.; and Cao, Y. 2023b. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. arXiv:2210.03629. · arXiv
  36. Zhang, Z.; Zhang, A.; Li, M.; and Smola, A. 2022. Auto- matic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Mod- els. arXiv:2210.03493. · arXiv
  37. Zhu, D.; Chen, J.; Shen, X.; Li, X.; and Elhoseiny, M. 2023. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language understand- ing with advanced large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Romero, O. J., Zimmerman, J., Steinfeld, A., & Tomasic, A.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
396-405
ISSN
2994-4317 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.09830
arXiv
2308.09830
OpenAlex
W4391116688
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
12.69
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (90REGE0007, 90DPGE0003)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Psychiatry, Mental Health, Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cognitive Computing and Networks
Keywords
large language models, cognitive architecture, artificial agents, chain-of-thought prompting, Society of Mind, LIDA, Clarion, neuro-symbolic AI, symbolic representation, prompt engineering, modular integration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review