Umwelt Engineering: Designing the Cognitive Worlds of Linguistic Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.27626v1
• Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2026 10:49:50 GMT
• Title: Umwelt Engineering: Designing the Cognitive Worlds of Linguistic Agents
• Abstract summary: I propose design of the linguistic cognitive environment as a third layer in stack stack engineering.<n>Two experiments test the thesis that altering medium of reasoning alters itself.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: I propose Umwelt engineering -- the deliberate design of the linguistic cognitive environment -- as a third layer in the agent design stack, upstream of both prompt and context engineering. Two experiments test the thesis that altering the medium of reasoning alters cognition itself. In Experiment 1, three language models reason under two vocabulary constraints -- No-Have (eliminating possessive "to have") and E-Prime (eliminating "to be") -- across seven tasks (N=4,470 trials). No-Have improves ethical reasoning by 19.1 pp (p < 0.001), classification by 6.5 pp (p < 0.001), and epistemic calibration by 7.4 pp, while achieving 92.8% constraint compliance. E-Prime shows dramatic but model-dependent effects: cross-model correlations reach r = -0.75. In Experiment 2, 16 linguistically constrained agents tackle 17 debugging problems. No constrained agent outperforms the control individually, yet a 3-agent ensemble achieves 100% ground-truth coverage versus 88.2% for the control. A permutation test confirms only 8% of random 3-agent subsets achieve full coverage, and every successful subset contains the counterfactual agent. Two mechanisms emerge: cognitive restructuring and cognitive diversification. The primary limitation is the absence of an active control matching constraint prompt elaborateness.

Related papers

• Persistent Semantic Entities in Tool-Augmented LLM Systems [3.556355987197792]
  Tool-augmented LLM agents can harbor implicit state that persists across sessions, activates through events, and propagates across agent boundaries.<n>We formalize this as Persistent Semantic Entities (PSEs)<n>We evaluate them across 24 models from 11 families (1.5B--1T parameters)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T06:31:00Z)
• Not All Flips Are Conformity: Decomposing Stance Convergence in Multi-Agent LLM Debate [5.650336594658653]
  We show that a conventional answer flip rate conflates three mechanisms: spontaneous instability, stance-induced conformity, and reasoning-induced persuasion.<n>Our three-source decomposition framework isolates each through controlled counterfactual conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T17:41:11Z)
• Amplifying, Not Learning: Fine-Tuned AI Text Detectors Amplify a Pretrained Direction [51.56484100374058]
  Text detectors amplify a pretrained typicality axis; they do not construct an AI-vs-human boundary.<n>On raw encoders before any task supervision, projecting onto centroid(AI)-centroid(HC3) achieves NYT-vs-HC3 AUROC 0.806/0.944/0.834 across three architectures.<n>On RoBERTa-base, raw projection exceeds fine-tuning; on RoBERTa-base, full fine-tuning reduces discrimination below raw on both fluent-formal populations tested.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T19:08:38Z)
• Agentic Harness Engineering: Observability-Driven Automatic Evolution of Coding-Agent Harnesses [57.20181537213498]
  Agentic Harness Engineering (AHE) is a closed loop that automates harness engineering.<n>AHE addresses challenges through three matched observability pillars.<n>Ten AHE lift pass@1 on Terminal-Bench 2 from 69.7% to 77.0%, surpassing the human-designed harness Codex-CLI.<n>On SWE-bench-verified it tops aggregate success at 12% fewer tokens than the seed, and on Terminal-Bench 2 it yields +5.1 to +10.1pp cross-family gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T16:55:02Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Claw-Eval: Toward Trustworthy Evaluation of Autonomous Agents [66.97968363332465]
  We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps in agent benchmarks.<n>Claw-Eval comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups.<n>Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T17:43:18Z)
• Representational Collapse in Multi-Agent LLM Committees: Measurement and Diversity-Aware Consensus [0.0]
  Multi-agent LLM committees replicate the same model under different role prompts and aggregate outputs by majority vote.<n>We embed each agent's chain-of-thought rationale and measure pairwise similarity across 100 GSM8K questions with three Qwen2.5-14B agents.<n>DALC, a training-free consensus protocol that computes diversity weights from embedding geometry, reaches 87% on GSM8K versus 84% for self-consistency at 26% lower token cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-04T17:30:23Z)
• Trivial Vocabulary Bans Improve LLM Reasoning More Than Deep Linguistic Constraints [0.0]
  A previous study reported that E-Prime selectively altered reasoning in language models.<n>I designed a replication with active controls to test the proposed mechanism.<n>I present these findings as a case study in discovery through disconfirmation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T03:48:27Z)
• Semantic Invariance in Agentic AI [2.7821684674538347]
  Large Language Models increasingly serve as autonomous reasoning agents in decision support, scientific problem-solving, and multi-agent coordination systems.<n> deploying LLM agents in consequential applications requires assurance that their reasoning remains stable under semantically equivalent input variations.<n>Standard benchmark evaluations, which assess accuracy on fixed, canonical problem formulations, fail to capture this critical reliability dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T17:08:44Z)
• Alignment Backfire: Language-Dependent Reversal of Safety Interventions Across 16 Languages in LLM Multi-Agent Systems [0.0]
  In perpetrator treatment, offenders articulate remorse yet behavioral change does not follow.<n>We show that alignment interventions produce a structurally analogous phenomenon: surface safety that masks or generates collective pathology and internal dissociation.<n>These findings reframe alignment as a behavioral intervention subject to risk homeostasis and iatrogenesis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T07:46:59Z)
• Prompt Architecture Determines Reasoning Quality: A Variable Isolation Study on the Car Wash Problem [0.0]
  This study examines which prompt architecture layers in a production system enable correct reasoning.<n>We find that the STAR (Situation-Task-Action-Result) reasoning framework alone raises accuracy from 0% to 85%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T11:40:15Z)
• Information Fidelity in Tool-Using LLM Agents: A Martingale Analysis of the Model Context Protocol [69.11739400975445]
  We introduce the first theoretical framework for analyzing error accumulation in Model Context Protocol (MCP) agents.<n>We show that cumulative distortion exhibits linear growth and high-probability deviations bounded by $O(sqrtT)$.<n>Key findings include: semantic weighting reduces distortion by 80%, and periodic re-grounding approximately every 9 steps suffices for error control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T21:08:53Z)
• Towards a Science of Scaling Agent Systems [79.64446272302287]
  We formalize a definition for agent evaluation and characterize scaling laws as the interplay between agent quantity, coordination structure, modelic, and task properties.<n>We derive a predictive model using coordination metrics, that cross-validated R2=0, enabling prediction on unseen task domains.<n>We identify three effects: (1) a tool-coordination trade-off: under fixed computational budgets, tool-heavy tasks suffer disproportionately from multi-agent overhead, and (2) a capability saturation: coordination yields diminishing or negative returns once single-agent baselines exceed 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T06:52:21Z)
• Eigen-1: Adaptive Multi-Agent Refinement with Monitor-Based RAG for Scientific Reasoning [53.45095336430027]
  We develop a unified framework that combines implicit retrieval and structured collaboration.<n>On Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) Bio/Chem Gold, our framework achieves 48.3% accuracy.<n>Results on SuperGPQA and TRQA confirm robustness across domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T14:05:55Z)
• SOPBench: Evaluating Language Agents at Following Standard Operating Procedures and Constraints [59.645885492637845]
  SOPBench is an evaluation pipeline that transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions.<n>Our approach transforms each service-specific SOP code program into a directed graph of executable functions and requires agents to call these functions based on natural language SOP descriptions.<n>We evaluate 18 leading models, and results show the task is challenging even for top-tier models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:53:02Z)
• On the Resilience of LLM-Based Multi-Agent Collaboration with Faulty Agents [58.79302663733703]
  Large language model-based multi-agent systems have shown great abilities across various tasks due to the collaboration of expert agents.<n>The impact of clumsy or even malicious agents--those who frequently make errors in their tasks--on the overall performance of the system remains underexplored.<n>This paper investigates what is the resilience of various system structures under faulty agents on different downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T03:25:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.