# Where Cognition Lives: Dissecting Emergent from Computed Function in a Minimal Complete Cognitive Architecture

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22347 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.22347/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.07682/) (2022)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [In-context Learning and Induction Heads](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.11895/) (2022)
- [Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05217/) (2023)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)
- [Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.02177/) (2022)
- [Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.15004/) (2023)
- [Adaptive Computation Time for Recurrent Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.08983/) (2016)
- [Transformers Learn Shortcuts to Automata](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10749/) (2022)
- [Mixture-of-Depths: Dynamically allocating compute in transformer-based language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.02258/) (2024)
- [Depth-Adaptive Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.10073/) (2019)
- [Exploring Length Generalization in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.04901/) (2022)
- [What Algorithms can Transformers Learn? A Study in Length Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16028/) (2023)
- [The Parallelism Tradeoff: Limitations of Log-Precision Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.00729/) (2022)
- [PonderNet: Learning to Ponder](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.05407/) (2021)
- [The Right Tool for the Job: Matching Model and Instance Complexities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.07453/) (2020)
- [Reasoning About Beliefs and Actions Under Computational Resource Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1304.2759/) (2013)
- [Introducing Neuromodulation in Deep Neural Networks to Learn Adaptive Behaviours](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1812.09113/) (2018)
- [Need is All You Need: Homeostatic Neural Networks Adapt to Concept Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.08645/) (2022)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Can a Dynamic Internal Field Govern a Transformer's Cognition? Certifiability, not Superiority, in Homeostatic Compute Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24319/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A cognitive architecture is more than the module that reasons: it must also decide how long to think and what deserves the effort. We built a minimal but complete system - a recurrent reasoner with adaptive halting, a homeostatic control field, and a value module - and asked of each part: does this function emerge from gradient descent, or must it be computed? Competence emerges. Stopping appears to emerge too, and to be worth more than everything decidable in advance, but that appearance is instrumentation: payoff at matched mean compute climbs from 0.467 (uniform) through 0.546 (difficulty) to 0.698 (ex-ante value), and the further climb to 0.921 (posterior self-observation) does not survive audit. PonderNet-style halting returns a halting-weighted mixture of hidden states while forced-depth baselines return one, and the language head is trained on the mixture alone; equalizing the readout annihilates the apparent advantage of native execution (residual +0.000 [0.000, 0.000]). Value does not emerge: trained couplings capture zero of a payoff an explicit allocator captures completely (+0.151, routing correlation +0.79), so the second-order decisions that pay must be computed, at least where value is orthogonal to content, as here by construction. On a frozen LLM actuator the same instruments show self-consistency voting to be a measured bound (+0.0236 [+0.0150, +0.0326]) and inter-sample agreement nearly worthless as a stopping signal, its mass concentrating on wrong answers. Every null we assert carries a mechanism and a positive control, and the protocol is part of the contribution. Executing our own falsifiable prediction, value under commitment pays +0.1312 [+0.1124, +0.1502] in a cliff-cost family, some seven times the smooth-family estimate - not because the cliff shifts information ex ante, but because it multiplies the attainable range fivefold (5.1x [3.4, 8.2]).