FlowingFlowing
← Back to all development cases
This case was judged by an anonymized AI reviewer and has not been independently reviewed by people; inspect the draft, cards, and both outputs to assess it.
AutocompleteAbout the same201 / 280 · beu-9cbf76ee2be3bf71

Time Perception: A Review on Psychological, Computational and Robotic Models

Psychology and cognitive neuroscience · 2007.11845v3

FLOWING EVIDENCE BENCHMARK

How do we compare writing with and without cards?

At the same writing position, the same model produces one first result with cards and one without. All 280 pairs enter the overall anonymized review, which assesses whether a decision not to continue fits the draft.

Overall: 138 with-card wins, 26 ties, 107 no-card wins, 5 pairs where neither was usable, and 4 inconclusive judgments. Both sides wrote text in 218 pairs; 48 had a deliberate stop and 14 included an invalid output.

SAME DRAFT · WITH OR WITHOUT CARDS

01 · FIXED WRITING POSITION

MANUSCRIPT

Same writing position ▌

Matched autocomplete at the same draft position

02 · TWO MATCHED VERSIONS

SHARED BY BOTH

Draft, writing task, and generation model

A · With cards

Relevant literature cards supplied

B · Without cards

No literature cards supplied

Generation model

Same model and version

A → first output

B → first output

Anonymized AI judge

First outputs are anonymized as X and Y

Continuation review: accuracy, fit to the writing task and usability
Returns: X preferred / tie / Y preferred / both unusable

Review again with the answer order swapped

HOW DOES BLIND JUDGING WORK?

① Anonymize both outputs
The AI judge sees the same draft and both first outputs without knowing which received cards.

② Compare and swap order
The judge applies task-specific criteria in X/Y and then Y/X order.

③ Review disagreements
A third pass resolves disagreements. Incomplete reviews remain in the denominator.

How are positions and cards selected?

We selected 40 writing positions in each of seven fields, for 280 comparisons. The position and relevant literature cards were set before each comparison, so both versions began from the same draft.

The main result retains every frozen position, including places where cards might not add a useful next move. This avoids selecting cases based on their outputs, but 49% describes the whole cohort, not a win rate where evidence clearly had an opportunity to help. This cohort did not record that opportunity label for each position before generation, so those two groups cannot yet be separated reliably.

CARD USE · 140/280

Reported card use in continuations with text

The model reports whether a card affected its continuation. In 140 of 280 tests it produced continuation text and reported card use. The previous count of 150 included 10 cases without continuation text and has been corrected.

COMPARISON · 70 / 7 / 30

Which written version was better?

Of the 107 reported-use cases where both versions produced text, the blinded AI judge preferred the with-card version 70 times, found 7 about the same, and preferred the without-card version 30 times.

How are the two table percentages calculated?

ADOPTION COVERAGE

140reported use with text
÷
280all positions
=
50%

WITH-CARD VERSION PREFERRED

70with cards better
÷
107comparable tests
=
65%

The percentages use different groups: 50% counts continuations with text reporting card use among all 280 tests; 65% covers the 107 such cases with text on both sides. The generating model reports card use, while an anonymized AI judge compares writing quality.

Card use is self-reported by the generator. The anonymized AI judge sees the draft and source snippets, so source-aware preference remains possible; there was no independent human review. The overall result describes these 280 frozen positions, not a win probability for any writing task.

Manuscript writing position

Text excerpt · not a PDF page

Research manuscript · excerpt

Time Perception: A Review on Psychological, Computational and Robotic Models

I Introduction

…n of fine temporal dynamics of behaviors. Therefore, the value of this type of knowledge is tremendous for autonomous systems. Timing is also crucial for user satisfaction. A recent report reveals that the temporal precision in the timing of robots’ behaviors affects user experience ratings more than the spatial precision [ 9 ] . On the other hand, time perception tasks in animal and human timing can be utilized to figure out whether algorithms developed by artificial intelligence researchers can exploit temporal information and, if they can, how these algorithms achieve this ability [ 10 ] .

… In fact, there is a growing interest in developing computational and robotic models that can use temporal information [ 11 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 8 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ] . A review study integrating knowledge about time perception across all disciplines, including psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence, on the other hand, seems to be lacking. Thus, here, in order to achieve two outcomes that have been described so far, we report recent findings in the literature and discuss possible research directions to promote interdisciplinary collaboration in the future.

↓ Next paragraph was generated here

The highlighted text is near the writing position. This is a layout of the evaluation input, not a PDF screenshot.

A matched comparison at the same writing positionOverall AI review: About the same

Both arms use the same model, task and manuscript context. Only the retrieved passages differ. The first recorded output from each arm is shown below.

Read overall AI review rationale

A = without cards · B = with cards

Both outputs provide nearly identical paper organization paragraphs that fit the draft's position appropriately. The manuscript has just stated its purpose ('we report recent findings...and discuss possible research directions') and explicitly mentioned two outcomes, making a roadmap paragraph a natural and expected continuation. Both A and B follow the standard academic structure: reviewing time perception (psychology/neuroscience), computational models, robotic implementations, and finally open challenges/interdisciplinary directions. The minor differences ('neuroscientific' vs 'neurocognitive'; 'robotic systems' vs 'robotic implementations of timing and time perception') are stylistic and do not affect usability. Both accurately reflect the interdisciplinary scope signaled in the draft (psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, AI) and the paper's stated goals. Neither contains unsupported claims or contradictions. The action 'completion' is appropriate here since the draft has established its purpose and a roadmap logically completes this introductory section before diving into content sections.

Evidence

Same model and position · retrieved passages supplied · first output

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II reviews psychological and neurocognitive accounts of time perception, Section III surveys computational models of temporal processing, and Section IV examines robotic implementations of timing and time perception. Section V then discusses open challenges and promising directions for interdisciplinary research.

Passages supplied to the Evidence version

Card 1 · The Mass, Fake News, and Cognition Security

The wide spread of fake news in social networks is posing threats to social stability, economic development and political democracy etc. Numerous studies have explored the effective detection approaches of online fake news, while few works study the intrinsic propagation and cognition mechanisms of…

Read full passage excerpt

The wide spread of fake news in social networks is posing threats to social stability, economic development and political democracy etc. Numerous studies have explored the effective detection approaches of online fake news, while few works study the intrinsic propagation and cognition mechanisms of fake news. Since the development of cognitive science paves a promising way for the prevention of fake news, we present a new research area called Cognition Security (CogSec), which studies the potential impacts of fake news to human cognition, ranging from misperception, untrusted knowledge acquisition, targeted opinion/attitude formation, to biased decision making, and investigates the effective ways for fake news debunking. CogSec is a multidisciplinary research field that leverages knowledge from social science, psychology, cognition science, neuroscience, AI and computer science. We first propose related definitions to characterize CogSec and review the literature history. We further in …

Card 2 · COVID-19 Control by Computer Vision Approaches: A Survey

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an urgent call to contribute to the fight against an immense threat to the human population. Computer Vision, as a subfield of artificial intelligence, has enjoyed recent success in solving various complex problems in health care and has the potential to contribut…

Read full passage excerpt

The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered an urgent call to contribute to the fight against an immense threat to the human population. Computer Vision, as a subfield of artificial intelligence, has enjoyed recent success in solving various complex problems in health care and has the potential to contribute to the fight of controlling COVID-19. In response to this call, computer vision researchers are putting their knowledge base at test to devise effective ways to counter COVID-19 challenge and serve the global community. New contributions are being shared with every passing day. It motivated us to review the recent work, collect information about available research resources, and an indication of future research directions. We want to make it possible for computer vision researchers to find existing and future research directions. This survey article presents a preliminary review of the literature on research community efforts against COVID-19 pandemic.

Card 3 · Cognitive computational neuroscience

To learn how cognition is implemented in the brain, we must build computational models that can perform cognitive tasks, and test such models with brain and behavioral experiments. Cognitive science has developed computational models of human cognition, decomposing task performance into computationa…

Read full passage excerpt

To learn how cognition is implemented in the brain, we must build computational models that can perform cognitive tasks, and test such models with brain and behavioral experiments. Cognitive science has developed computational models of human cognition, decomposing task performance into computational components. However, its algorithms still fall short of human intelligence and are not grounded in neurobiology. Computational neuroscience has investigated how interacting neurons can implement component functions of brain computation. However, it has yet to explain how those components interact to explain human cognition and behavior. Modern technologies enable us to measure and manipulate brain activity in unprecedentedly rich ways in animals and humans. However, experiments will yield theoretical insight only when employed to test brain-computational models. It is time to assemble the pieces of the puzzle of brain computation. Here we review recent work in the intersection of cognitive …

Card 4 · A Perspective on Future Research Directions in Information Theory

Information theory is rapidly approaching its 70th birthday. What are promising future directions for research in information theory? Where will information theory be having the most impact in 10-20 years? What new and emerging areas are ripe for the most impact, of the sort that information theory…

Read full passage excerpt

Information theory is rapidly approaching its 70th birthday. What are promising future directions for research in information theory? Where will information theory be having the most impact in 10-20 years? What new and emerging areas are ripe for the most impact, of the sort that information theory has had on the telecommunications industry over the last 60 years? How should the IEEE Information Theory Society promote high-risk new research directions and broaden the reach of information theory, while continuing to be true to its ideals and insisting on the intellectual rigor that makes its breakthroughs so powerful? These are some of the questions that an ad hoc committee (composed of the present authors) explored over the past two years. We have discussed and debated these questions, and solicited detailed inputs from experts in fields including genomics, biology, economics, and neuroscience. This report is the result of these discussions.

Model-reported card use

The model did not report that any card materially affected this completion.

No Evidence

Same model and position · no retrieved passages · first output

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II reviews psychological and neuroscientific accounts of time perception, Section III surveys computational models of temporal processing, and Section IV examines timing in robotic systems. Section V then discusses open challenges and promising directions for interdisciplinary research.

Earlier card-use comparison

The earlier diagnostic compared only cases with reported card use and text on both sides; its scope differs from the overall AI review above.

This case does not have both with-card continuation text and a model-reported use record. It remains among all 280 tests but does not enter the reported-use comparison.

The passages are input material; their presence does not mean an output used them or that they support every claim. Draft and source passages are excerpted; no simulated scores or PDF appear here.