Cognitive maps are generative programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making sense of the world and acting in it relies on building simplified mental representations that abstract away aspects of reality. This principle of cognitive mapping is universal to agents with limited resources. Living organisms, people, and algorithms all face the problem of forming functional representations of their world under various computing constraints. In this work, we explore the hypothesis that human resource-efficient planning may arise from representing the world as predictably structured. Building on the metaphor of concepts as programs, we propose that cognitive maps can take the form of generative programs that exploit predictability and redundancy, in contrast to directly encoding spatial layouts. We use a behavioral experiment to show that people who navigate in structured spaces rely on modular planning strategies that align with programmatic map representations. We describe a computational model that predicts human behavior in a variety of structured scenarios. This model infers a small distribution over possible programmatic cognitive maps conditioned on human prior knowledge of the world, and uses this distribution to generate resource-efficient plans. Our models leverages a Large Language Model as an embedding of human priors, implicitly learned through training on a vast corpus of human data. Our model demonstrates improved computational efficiency, requires drastically less memory, and outperforms unstructured planning algorithms with cognitive constraints at predicting human behavior, suggesting that human planning strategies rely on programmatic cognitive maps.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".