CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 16Psychiatry, Mental Health, NeuroscienceAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningCognitive Computing and Networks

Can A Cognitive Architecture Fundamentally Enhance LLMs? Or Vice Versa?

Open access
Sun, Ron·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2401.10444arXiv 2401.10444
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The paper discusses what is needed to address the limitations of current LLM-centered AI systems. The paper argues that incorporating insights from human cognition and psychology, as embodied by a computational cognitive architecture, can help develop systems that are more capable, more reliable, and more human-like. It emphasizes the importance of the dual-process architecture and the hybrid neuro-symbolic approach in addressing the limitations of current LLMs. In the opposite direction, the paper also highlights the need for an overhaul of computational cognitive architectures to better reflect advances in AI and computing technology. Overall, the paper advocates for a multidisciplinary, mutually beneficial approach towards developing better models both for AI and for understanding the human mind.

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.2401.10444

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • LLMs have a limited context window that restricts the amount of information they can process and thus their ability to understand the ever-changing environment and maintain effective long-term interactions.

    “Despite their capabilities, LLMs still have shortcomings, such as a limited context window, which restricts the amount of information that can be processed and thus the ability to understand the ever-changing environment [58, 60] and maintain effective long-term interactions [45, 50].”

    From CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Introduction says current LLM-centered systems have limited memory, and “Human-like Memory: Mnemonic Aid to LLMs” says episodic and working memory are lacking in most LLMs. Those passages support a general memory limitation, but they do not identify a limited context window or say that it restricts understanding of a changing environment or effective long-term interactions. The indexed passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Cognitive AI offers a promising path to address lack of context awareness by mimicking human cognitive processes to enhance reasoning and decision-making.

    “Cognitive AI offers a promising path to address this by mimicking human cognitive processes to enhance reasoning and decision-making [50, 63].”

    From CAIM: Development and Evaluation of a Cognitive AI Memory Framework for Long-Term Interaction with Intelligent Agents (2026) · cites this paper as [50]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Baddeley, A. (1986). Working Memory. Oxford University Press, New York.
  2. Binz, M., & Schulz, E. (2023). Using cognitive psychology to understand GPT-3. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (6), e2218523120.
  3. Booch, G., Fabiano, F., Horesh, L., Kate, K., Lenchner, J., Linck, N., Loreggia, A., Murgesan, K., Mattei, N., Rossi, F., & Srivastava, B., (2021). Thinking fast and slow in AI. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 15042-15046.
  4. Bubeck, S., et al. (2023). Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with GPT- 4. arXiv:2303.12712. · arXiv
  5. Chen, L., Lu, K., Rajeswaran, A., Lee, K., Grover, A., Laskin, M., Abbeel, P., Srinivas, A., & Mordatch, I. (2021). Decision transformer: Reinforcement learning via sequence modeling. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 15084-15097.
  6. Dasgupta, I., Lampinen, A. K., Chan, S. C., Creswell, A., Kumaran, D., McClelland, J. L., & Hill, F. (2022). Language models show human-like content effects on reasoning. arXiv:2207.07051. · arXiv
  7. Dreyfus, Hubert, & Dreyfus, Stuart (1986). Mind over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer. Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell.
  8. Elman, J.L. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition, 48(1), 71-99.
  9. Evans, J. & K. Frankish (eds.), (2009). In Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  10. Fodor, J. A., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1988). Connectionism and cognitive architecture: A critical analysis. Cognition, 28(1-2), 3-71.
  11. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In: B. Resnick (ed.), The Nature of Intelligence. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
  12. Hasher, J. & J. Zacks, (1979). Automatic and effortful processes in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108, 356-358.
  13. Helie, S. & R. Sun, (2010). Incubation, insight, and creative problem solving: A unified theory and a connectionist model. Psychological Review, 117(3), 994-1024.
  14. Lin, B.Y., et al. (2023). SwiftSage: a generative agent with fast and slow thinking for complex interactive tasks. arXiv:2305.17390. · arXiv
  15. Macchi, L., M. Bagassi, & R. Viale, (eds.), (2016). Cognitive Unconscious and Human Rationality. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  16. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
  17. Mollo, D.C. & Millière, R. (2023), The vector grounding problem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01481. · arXiv
  18. Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in Personality. Oxford University Press, New York.
  19. Park, J. S., O'Brien, J. C., Cai, C. J., Morris, M. R., Liang, P., & Bernstein, M. S. (2023). Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv:2304.03442. · arXiv
  20. Pavlick, E. (2023). Symbols and grounding in large language models. Philosophical Transactions A, 381(2251)
  21. Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28(1-2), 73-193.
  22. Reber, A. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. 118(3), 219-235.
  23. Reder, L. (ed.) (1996). Implicit Memory and Metacognition. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
  24. Reiss, S. (2004). Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires. Review of General Psychology, 8(3), 179-193.
  25. Romero, O.J., J. Zimmerman, A. Steinfeld, & A. Tomasic (2023). Synergistic integration of large language models and cognitive architectures for robust AI: An exploratory analysis. arXiv:2308.09830. · arXiv
  26. Saparov, A., & He, H. (2022). Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. arXiv:2210.01240. · arXiv
  27. Schacter, D. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501-518.
  28. Stanfill, C. & Waltz, D. (1986). Toward memory-based reasoning. Communication of ACM, 29(12), 1213-1228.
  29. Sumers, T., et al. (2023). Cognitive architectures for language agents. arXiv:2309.
  30. Sun, R. (1994). Integrating Rules and Connectionism for Robust Commonsense Reasoning. Wiley, New York.
  31. Sun, R. (2000). Symbol grounding: A new look at an old issue. Philosophical Psychology, 13(3), 403- 418.
  32. Sun, R. (ed.) (2006). Cognition and Multi-Agent Interaction: From Cognitive Modeling to Social Simulation. Cambridge University Press, New York.
  33. Sun, R. (2015). Interpreting psychological notions: A dual-process computational theory. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4(3), 191-196.
  34. Sun, R. (2016). Anatomy of the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  35. Sun, R. (ed.) (2023). The Cambridge Handbook on Computational Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  36. Sun, R., E. Merrill, & T. Peterson, (2001). From implicit skills to explicit knowledge: A bottom-up model of skill learning. Cognitive Science, 25(2), 203-244.
  37. Sun, R., P. Slusarz, & C. Terry, (2005). The interaction of the explicit and the implicit in skill learning: A dual-process approach. Psychological Review, 112(1), 159-192.
  38. Sun, R. & N. Wilson, (2014). Roles of implicit processes: instinct, intuition, and personality. Mind and Society, 13(1), 109-134.
  39. Sun, R., Wilson, N., & Lynch, M. (2016). Emotion: A unified mechanistic interpretation from a cognitive architecture. Cognitive Computation, 8(1), 1-14.
  40. Sun, R. & X. Zhang, (2006). Accounting for a variety of reasoning data within a cognitive architecture. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 18(2), 169-191.
  41. Tulving, E. (1983). Elements of Episodic Memory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
  42. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  43. Wei, J. et al. (2022). Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv:2201.11903. · arXiv
  44. Xi, Z., et al. (2023). The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. arXiv:2309.07864. · arXiv
  45. Xie, Y., Xie, T., Lin, M., Wei, W., Li, C., Kong, B., Chen, L., Zhuo, C., Hu, B. & Li, Z., (2023). OlaGPT: Empowering LLMs with human-like problem-solving abilities. arXiv:2305.16334. · arXiv
  46. Yao, S., J. Zhao, D. Yu, N. Du, I. Shafran, K. Narasimhan, & Y. Cao, (2023). React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. Proceedings of ICLR 2023. arXiv:2210.03629. · arXiv
  47. Zhang, H., Li, L.H., Meng, T., Chang, K.W., & Van den Broeck, G. (2023). On the paradox of learning to reason from data. Proceedings of IJCAI 2023. arXiv:2205.11502. · arXiv
  48. Zeng, A., et al. (2023). AgentTuning: enabling generalized agent abilities for LLMs. arXiv:2310.12823v2 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sun, R.
Affiliations
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Sun, Ron
ORCID
Sun, Ron
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2401.10444
arXiv
2401.10444
OpenAlex
W4391123973
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity
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, dual-process theory, human cognition, embodied cognition, LLM limitations, human-AI alignment

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