The Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC) is introduced, a theoretically grounded framework for shifting evaluation from what text-based AI systems produce to how they think, complementing existing outcome-based benchmarks with cognitively grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation.
Abstract
Evaluating artificial intelligence systems has historically relied on outcome-based benchmarks that measure task accuracy, robustness, or fairness. While indispensable, these benchmarks provide limited diagnostic insight into the underlying cognitive processes that generate performance-leaving critical questions unanswered about how AI systems reason, integrate memory, manage complexity, or avoid generating false information. This paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC), a theoretically grounded framework for shifting evaluation from what text-based AI systems produce to how they think. MAAC defines nine cognitively motivated dimensions: Cognitive Load, Tool Execution, Content Quality, Memory Integration, Complexity Handling, Hallucination Control, Knowledge Transfer, Processing Efficiency, and Process-Outcome Alignment. Each dimension is grounded in established cognitive science theory-drawing on Marr's tri-level hypothesis, Baddeley's working memory model, Sweller's cognitive load theory, and unified theories of cognition. Five theoretical analyses provide initial support for the framework's coherence and empirical testability: dimension-to-theory mapping; a coverage matrix assessing breadth and non-redundancy; a formal gap analysis relative to current evaluation practice; a worked diagnostic illustration; and a set of a priori interdependency predictions for future empirical testing. MAAC provides a theoretical and operational framework for principled process-level cognitive assessment of text-based AI systems, complementing existing outcome-based benchmarks with cognitively grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation.
A theoretical reading of apparently contradictory findings is offered of apparently contradictory findings—improved academic products alongside qualitative, neuroscientific, and behavioral signs of reduced cognitive engagement—which is term the critical-thinking paradox of GenAI-integrated learning.
Jia-Yin Lin, N. M. Al-Hada· Frontiers in Psychology· 1 citation
A key finding of this review is that whether GenAI is used at all is less critical than which functions are offloaded, which are maintained, and the extent to which users remain epistemically responsible for the resulting output.
Deva Adithiya L.M.D, Samarawickrema N. S., Peiris J. A. H. L. et al.· International Journal of Mod...· 0 citations
Creativity research faces three persistent bottlenecks: divergent-thinking scoring is labour-intensive, cognitive models of creativity remain underspecified, and laboratory tasks fall short of real-world creative achievement. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential solutions, but the field lacks a structured frame...
The model generates the intuitive errors elicited by the bat-and-ball problem and explains why these errors can be seen as byproducts of adaptive cognition, and shows how such judgments can be understood as rational adaptations to the learning environment.
BACKGROUND
Most clinical reasoning evaluations in large language models (LLMs) score only the final answer, usually multiple-choice accuracy, which explains little about model reasoning. Two developments stress this gap: reasoning-optimized models are now common, and several expose an explicit extended thinking control...
Adnan Agha, M. Jalil, Eram Anwar et al.· JMIR Research Protocols· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.