让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning. To understand this gap, we synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning and knowledge, and transformation operations. We introduce a fine-grained evaluation framework and apply it to 192K traces from 18 models across text, vision, and audio, alongside 1,346 human think-aloud traces on a new, domain-agnostic dataset for human-model comparison. We find that models are able to deploy cognitive elements seen in human reasoning but differ in how they use them. Leveraging these patterns, we develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffolds successful reasoning topologies, improving the accuracy of the strongest models by 9.7 percentage points on ill-structured problems. Meta-analysis of 1.6K LLM reasoning papers reveals the research community concentrates on easily quantifiable elements but rarely targets self-awareness, whose use differs between human and model reasoning. By establishing a shared vocabulary between cognitive science and LLM research, our framework enables diagnosis of reasoning failures and principled development of models that reason through robust cognitive mechanisms rather than spurious shortcuts, while providing tools to test theories of human cognition at scale.

Politically biased AI can shift users' opinions, yet it remains unclear whether model disclaimers protect against such persuasion. We report a preregistered experiment (N=1,586) examining how disclaimer design and user characteristics shape susceptibility to politically biased AI. We varied whether disclaimers identified political bias versus potential inaccuracies and whether they included an explanation. Participants completed two decision-making tasks with an LLM biased against their political views, with outcomes assessed immediately and one week later. Disclaimers identifying political bias and including an explanation reduced persuasion, but effects varied across contexts and did not persist. Individual differences were more consistent predictors: Republicans were more persuaded and reported higher trust than Democrats across tasks. Similarly, participants who used AI more frequently were also more persuaded, whereas those with greater self-reported AI knowledge were less persuaded. These findings suggest that generic disclaimers are not enough: effective safeguards must account for user heterogeneity and context.