Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in teams, yet existing coordination approaches often occupy two extremes. Highly structured methods rely on fixed roles, pipelines, or task decompositions assigned a priori. In contrast, fully unstructured teams enable adaptability and exploration but suffer from inefficiencies such as error propagation, inter-agent conflicts, and wasted resources (measured in time, tokens, or file operations). We introduce Language Agent Teams for Task Evolution (LATTE), a framework for coordinating LLM teams inspired by distributed systems, where processors must operate under partial observability and communication constraints. In LATTE, a team of agents collaboratively construct and maintain a shared, evolving coordination graph which encodes sub-task dependencies, individual agent assignment, and the current state of sub-task progress. This protocol maintains consistency while empowering agents to dynamically allocate work, adapt coordination, and discover new tasks. Across multiple collaborative tasks and a variety of base models, we demonstrate how LATTE reduces token usage, wall-clock time, communication, and coordination failures (e.g. file conflicts and redundant outputs) while matching or exceeding the accuracy of standard designs including MetaGPT, decentralized teams, top-down Leader-Worker hierarchies, and static decompositions.

A central goal of cognitive modeling is to develop models that not only predict human behavior but also provide insight into the underlying cognitive mechanisms. While neural network models trained on large-scale behavioral data often achieve strong predictive performance, they typically fall short in offering interpretable explanations of the cognitive processes they capture. In this work, we explore the potential of pretrained large language models (LLMs) to serve as dual-purpose cognitive models--capable of both accurate prediction and interpretable explanation in natural language. Specifically, we employ reinforcement learning with outcome-based rewards to guide LLMs toward generating explicit reasoning traces for explaining human risky choices. Our findings demonstrate that this approach produces high-quality explanations alongside strong quantitative predictions of human decisions.

In this work, we take a first step toward elucidating the mechanisms behind emergent exploration in unsupervised reinforcement learning. We study Single-Goal Contrastive Reinforcement Learning (SGCRL) (Liu et al., 2025), a self-supervised algorithm capable of solving challenging long-horizon goal-reaching tasks without external rewards or curricula. We combine theoretical analysis of the algorithm’s objective function with controlled experiments to understand what drives its exploration. We show that SGCRL maximizes implicit rewards shaped by its learned representations. These representations automatically modify the reward landscape to promote exploration before reaching the goal and exploitation thereafter. Our experiments also demonstrate that these exploration dynamics arise from learning low-rank representations of the state space rather than from neural network function approximation. Our improved understanding enables us to adapt SGCRL to perform safety-aware exploration.

A burgeoning area within reinforcement learning (RL) is the design of sequential decision-making agents centered around large language models (LLMs). While autonomous decision-making agents powered by modern LLMs could facilitate numerous real-world applications, such successes demand agents that are capable of data-efficient RL. One key obstacle to achieving data efficiency in RL is exploration, a challenge that we demonstrate many recent proposals for LLM agent designs struggle to contend with. Meanwhile, classic algorithms from the RL literature known to gracefully address exploration require technical machinery that can be challenging to operationalize in purely natural language settings. In this work, rather than relying on finetuning or in-context learning to coax LLMs into implicitly imitating a RL algorithm, we illustrate how LLMs can be used to explicitly implement an existing RL algorithm (Posterior Sampling for Reinforcement Learning) whose capacity for statistically-efficient exploration is already well-studied. We offer empirical results demonstrating how our LLM-based implementation of a known, data-efficient RL algorithm can be considerably more effective in natural language tasks that demand prudent exploration.

While contemporary large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable in isolation, there are still many difficult problems that lie beyond the abilities of a single LLM. For such tasks, there is still uncertainty about how best to take many LLMs as parts and combine them into a greater whole. This position paper argues that potential blueprints for designing such modular language agents can be found in the existing literature on cognitive models and artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. To make this point clear, we formalize the idea of an agent template that specifies roles for individual LLMs and how their functionalities should be composed. We then survey a variety of existing language agents in the literature and highlight their underlying templates derived directly from cognitive models or AI algorithms. By highlighting these designs, we aim to call attention to agent templates inspired by cognitive science and AI as a powerful tool for developing effective, interpretable language agents.

Using AI to create autonomous researchers has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery. A prerequisite for this vision is understanding how well an AI model can identify the underlying structure of a black-box system from its behavior. In this paper, we explore how well a large language model (LLM) learns to identify a black-box function from passively observed versus actively collected data. We investigate the reverse-engineering capabilities of LLMs across three distinct types of black-box systems, each chosen to represent different problem domains where future autonomous AI researchers may have considerable impact: Program, Formal Language, and Math Equation. Through extensive experiments, we show that LLMs fail to extract information from observations, reaching a performance plateau that falls short of the ideal of Bayesian inference. However, we demonstrate that prompting LLMs to not only observe but also intervene – actively querying the black-box with specific inputs to observe the resulting output – improves performance by allowing LLMs to test edge cases and refine their beliefs. By providing the intervention data from one LLM to another, we show that this improvement is partly a result of engaging in the process of generating effective interventions, paralleling results in the literature on human learning. Further analysis reveals that engaging in intervention can help LLMs escape from two common failure modes: overcomplication, where the LLM falsely assumes prior knowledge about the black-box, and overlooking, where the LLM fails to incorporate observations. These insights provide practical guidance for helping LLMs more effectively reverse-engineer black-box systems, supporting their use in making new discoveries.

In this work, we take a first step toward elucidating the mechanisms behind emergent exploration in unsupervised reinforcement learning. We study Single-Goal Contrastive Reinforcement Learning (SGCRL), a self-supervised algorithm capable of solving challenging long-horizon goal-reaching tasks without external rewards or curricula. We combine theoretical analysis of the algorithm's objective function with controlled experiments to understand what drives its exploration. We show that SGCRL maximizes implicit rewards shaped by its learned representations. These representations automatically modify the reward landscape to promote exploration before reaching the goal and exploitation thereafter. Our experiments also demonstrate that these exploration dynamics arise from learning low-rank representations of the state space rather than from neural network function approximation. Our improved understanding enables us to adapt SGCRL to perform safety-aware exploration.

Humans' distinctive role in the world can largely be attributed to our capacity for iterated learning, a process by which knowledge is expanded and refined over generations. A range of theories seek to explain why humans are so adept at iterated learning, many positing substantial evolutionary discontinuities in communication or cognition. Is it necessary to posit large differences in abilities between humans and other species, or could small differences in communication ability produce large differences in what a species can learn over generations? We investigate this question through a formal model based on information theory. We manipulate how much information individual learners can send each other and observe the effect on iterated learning performance. Incremental changes to the channel rate can lead to dramatic, non-linear changes to the eventual performance of the population. We complement this model with a theoretical result that describes how individual lossy communications constrain the global performance of iterated learning. Our results demonstrate that incremental, quantitative changes to communication abilities could be sufficient to explain large differences in what can be learned over many generations.

A sequential decision-making agent balances between exploring to gain new knowledge about an environment and exploiting current knowledge to maximize immediate reward. For environments studied in the traditional literature, optimal decisions gravitate over time toward exploitation as the agent accumulates sufficient knowledge and the benefits of further exploration vanish. What if, however, the environment offers an unlimited amount of useful knowledge and there is large benefit to further exploration no matter how much the agent has learned? We offer a simple, quintessential example of such a complex environment. In this environment, rewards are unbounded and an agent can always increase the rate at which rewards accumulate by exploring to learn more. Consequently, an optimal agent forever maintains a propensity to explore.

Oftentimes, environments for sequential decision-making problems can be quite sparse in the provision of evaluative feedback to guide reinforcement-learning agents. In the extreme case, long trajectories of behavior are merely punctuated with a single terminal feedback signal, leading to a significant temporal delay between the observation of a non-trivial reward and the individual steps of behavior culpable for achieving said reward. Coping with such a credit assignment challenge is one of the hallmark characteristics of reinforcement learning. While prior work has introduced the concept of hindsight policies to develop a theoretically moxtivated method for reweighting on-policy data by impact on achieving the observed trajectory return, we show that these methods experience instabilities which lead to inefficient learning in complex environments. In this work, we adapt existing importance-sampling ratio estimation techniques for off-policy evaluation to drastically improve the stability and efficiency of these so-called hindsight policy methods. Our hindsight distribution correction facilitates stable, efficient learning across a broad range of environments where credit assignment plagues baseline methods.

A default assumption in the design of reinforcement-learning algorithms is that a decision-making agent always explores to learn optimal behavior. In sufficiently complex environments that approach the vastness and scale of the real world, however, attaining optimal performance may in fact be an entirely intractable endeavor and an agent may seldom find itself in a position to complete the requisite exploration for identifying an optimal policy. Recent work has leveraged tools from information theory to design agents that deliberately forgo optimal solutions in favor of sufficiently-satisfying or satisficing solutions, obtained through lossy compression. Notably, such agents may employ fundamentally different exploratory decisions to learn satisficing behaviors more efficiently than optimal ones that are more data intensive. While supported by a rigorous corroborating theory, the underlying algorithm relies on model-based planning, drastically limiting the compatibility of these ideas with function approximation and high-dimensional observations. In this work, we remedy this issue by extending an agent that directly represents uncertainty over the optimal value function allowing it to both bypass the need for model-based planning and to learn satisficing policies. We provide simple yet illustrative experiments that demonstrate how our algorithm enables deep reinforcement-learning agents to achieve satisficing behaviors. In keeping with previous work on this setting for multi-armed bandits, we additionally find that our algorithm is capable of synthesizing optimal behaviors, when feasible, more efficiently than its non-information-theoretic counterpart.

All biological and artificial agents must act given limits on their ability to acquire and process information. As such, a general theory of adaptive behavior should be able to account for the complex interactions between an agent's learning history, decisions, and capacity constraints. Recent work in computer science has begun to clarify the principles that shape these dynamics by bridging ideas from reinforcement learning, Bayesian decision-making, and rate-distortion theory. This body of work provides an account of capacity-limited Bayesian reinforcement learning, a unifying normative framework for modeling the effect of processing constraints on learning and action selection. Here, we provide an accessible review of recent algorithms and theoretical results in this setting, paying special attention to how these ideas can be applied to studying questions in the cognitive and behavioral sciences.

A common strategy in curriculum generation for reinforcement learning is to train a teacher network to generate tasks that fall within a student network's ``zone of proximal development'' (ZPD). These are tasks that are not too easy and not too hard for the student. Albeit intuitive, ZPD is not well understood computationally. We propose ZONE, a novel computational framework that operationalizes ZPD. It formalizes ZPD through the language of Bayesian probability theory, revealing that tasks should be selected by difficulty (the student's success probability on the task) and learning progression (the degree of change in the student's model parameters). ZONE operationalizes ZPD with two techniques that we apply on top of existing algorithms. One is REJECT, which rejects tasks outside a difficulty scope and the other is GRAD, which prioritizes tasks that maximize the student's gradient norm. Compared to the original algorithms, the ZONE techniques improve the student’s generalization performance on discrete Minigrid environments and continuous control Mujoco domains with up to $9 \times$ higher success. ZONE also accelerates the student's learning by training on up to $10\times$ less data.

A centerpiece of the ever-popular reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) approach to fine-tuning autoregressive language models is the explicit training of a reward model to emulate human feedback, distinct from the language model itself. This reward model is then coupled with policy-gradient methods to dramatically improve the alignment between language model outputs and desired responses. In this work, we adopt a novel perspective wherein a pre-trained language model is itself simultaneously a policy, reward function, and transition function. An immediate consequence of this is that reward learning and language model fine-tuning can be performed jointly and directly, without requiring any further downstream policy optimization. While this perspective does indeed break the traditional agent-environment interface, we nevertheless maintain that there can be enormous statistical benefits afforded by bringing to bear traditional algorithmic concepts from reinforcement learning. Our experiments demonstrate one concrete instance of this through efficient exploration based on the representation and resolution of epistemic uncertainty. In order to illustrate these ideas in a transparent manner, we restrict attention to a simple didactic data generating process and leave for future work extension to systems of practical scale.

We explore the idea of aligning an AI assistant by inverting a model of users' (unknown) preferences from observed interactions. To validate our proposal, we run proof-of-concept simulations in the economic ultimatum game, formalizing user preferences as policies that guide the actions of simulated players. We find that the AI assistant accurately aligns its behavior to match standard policies from the economic literature (e.g., selfish, altruistic). However, the assistant's learned policies lack robustness and exhibit limited generalization in an out-of-distribution setting when confronted with a currency (e.g., grams of medicine) that was not included in the assistant's training distribution. Additionally, we find that when there is inconsistency in the relationship between language use and an unknown policy (e.g., an altruistic policy combined with rude language), the assistant's learning of the policy is slowed. Overall, our preliminary results suggest that developing simulation frameworks in which AI assistants need to infer preferences from diverse users can provide a valuable approach for studying practical alignment questions.

Humans' capacity for cumulative culture is remarkable: we can build up vast bodies of knowledge over generations. Communication, particularly via language, is a key component of this process. Previous work has described language as enabling posterior passing, where one Bayesian agent transmits a posterior distribution to the next. In practice, we cannot exactly copy our beliefs into the minds of others---we must communicate over the limited channel language provides. In this paper, we analyze cumulative culture as Bayesian reinforcement learning with communication over a rate-limited channel. We implement an agent that solves a crafting task and communicates to the next agent by approximating the optimal rate-distortion trade-off. Our model produces documented effects, such as the benefits of abstraction and selective social learning. It also suggests a new hypothesis: selective social learning can be harmful in tasks where initial exploration is required.

Prevailing methods for assessing and comparing generative AIs incentivize responses that serve a hypothetical representative individual. Evaluating models in these terms presumes homogeneous preferences across the population and engenders selection of agglomerative AIs, which fail to represent the diverse range of interests across individuals. We propose an alternative evaluation method that instead prioritizes inclusive AIs, which provably retain the requisite knowledge not only for subsequent response customization to particular segments of the population but also for utility-maximizing decisions.

The Bayes-Adaptive Markov Decision Process (BAMDP) formalism pursues the Bayes-optimal solution to the exploration-exploitation trade-off in reinforcement learning. As the computation of exact solutions to Bayesian reinforcement-learning problems is intractable, much of the literature has focused on developing suitable approximation algorithms. In this work, before diving into algorithm design, we first define, under mild structural assumptions, a complexity measure for BAMDP planning. As efficient exploration in BAMDPs hinges upon the judicious acquisition of information, our complexity measure highlights the worst-case difficulty of gathering information and exhausting epistemic uncertainty. To illustrate its significance, we establish a computationally-intractable, exact planning algorithm that takes advantage of this measure to show more efficient planning. We then conclude by introducing a specific form of state abstraction with the potential to reduce BAMDP complexity and gives rise to a computationally-tractable, approximate planning algorithm.

The quintessential model-based reinforcement-learning agent iteratively refines its estimates or prior beliefs about the true underlying model of the environment. Recent empirical successes in model-based reinforcement learning with function approximation, however, eschew the true model in favor of a surrogate that, while ignoring various facets of the environment, still facilitates effective planning over behaviors. Recently formalized as the value equivalence principle, this algorithmic technique is perhaps unavoidable as real-world reinforcement learning demands consideration of a simple, computationally-bounded agent interacting with an overwhelmingly complex environment. In this work, we entertain an extreme scenario wherein some combination of immense environment complexity and limited agent capacity entirely precludes identifying an exactly value-equivalent model. In light of this, we embrace a notion of approximate value equivalence and introduce an algorithm for incrementally synthesizing simple and useful approximations of the environment from which an agent might still recover near-optimal behavior. Crucially, we recognize the information-theoretic nature of this lossy environment compression problem and use the appropriate tools of rate-distortion theory to make mathematically precise how value equivalence can lend tractability to otherwise intractable sequential decision-making problems.

Throughout the cognitive-science literature, there is widespread agreement that decision-making agents operating in the real world do so under limited information-processing capabilities and without access to unbounded cognitive or computational resources. Prior work has drawn inspiration from this fact and leveraged an information-theoretic model of such behaviors or policies as communication channels operating under a bounded rate constraint. Meanwhile, a parallel line of work also capitalizes on the same principles from rate-distortion theory to formalize capacity-limited decision making through the notion of a learning target, which facilitates Bayesian regret bounds for provably-efficient learning algorithms. In this paper, we aim to elucidate this latter perspective by presenting a brief survey of these information-theoretic models of capacity-limited decision making in biological and artificial agents.