Papers › When Cognitive Graphs Meet LLMs: BDEI Cognitive Pathways for Panic Emotional Arousal Prediction
When Cognitive Graphs Meet LLMs: BDEI Cognitive Pathways for Panic Emotional Arousal Prediction
Mengzhu Liu, Long Qin, Chuan Ai, Zhengqiu Zhu, Hongru Liang, Chen Gao, Yong Li, Xin Lu, Quanjun Yin
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Predicting individual panic emotional arousal timing before manifestation is essential for proactive emergency intervention. Existing methods incorporate cognitive elements but none explicitly model the emotional arousal process, making them ill-suited for emotional arousal timing prediction. We argue that grounding prediction in appraisal emotion theory is necessary because it explicitly models this process, but three problems must be solved. (1) Appraisal theory posits that emotion arises from simultaneous evaluation across multiple threat dimensions, yet no prior work fuses these inputs into risk perception. (2) Existing cognitive models lack an Emotion node, decoupling threat appraisal from emotional arousal and forcing emotions to be inferred indirectly from behaviors. (3) Given their generalizable cognitive reasoning, current approaches adopt LLMs as the primary decision-maker, yet overlook the fragility and hallucination-proneness of their outputs. To address these issues, we introduce PanicCognitivePath (PCP), a framework that addresses all three. A Psychological Safety Distance (PSD) model, grounded in psychological distance theory, maps four-domain signals into a unified risk metric as the entry condition for subsequent cognitive reasoning. An explicit Emotion node grounded in appraisal emotion theory is introduced into BDI, forming a Belief-Desire-Emotion-Intention (BDEI) pathway. Agents whose risk metric exceeds the PSD threshold enter this pathway, coupling threat appraisal directly to emotional arousal. The BDEI pathway governs all state transitions while the LLM is confined to parameter estimation for the Belief-to-Desire transition, confining hallucinations to a single step and preventing error propagation. Experiments on Hurricane Sandy show PCP improves arousal timing accuracy by 10.68% over baselines, reduces peak count error to 7.07%.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2606.15121")
Code
Syntology Ran 7 of 9 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · honoured contract; 4 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 9 samples from 1 repository, 7 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
9 samples harvested; 7 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 9 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from supersonic0919/PanicCognitivePath. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
eea68264585a226e · report
ed4aa2502e081c6d · report
407e1ec216b4c60e · report
b0e91a2fbe149f33 · report
99a7dd418be1354a · report
8eae73067ddd7971 · report
3b7169cc91b56a4a · report
07ea5f8d414d2aa5 · report
7161aedd23c615c8 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2606.15121, was issued in June 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections