Automated Generation of Complexity-Validated Decision Scenarios Using Large Language Models

Cognitive decision-making research depends on diverse scenarios with carefully controlled complexity, yet manual production is slow, inconsistent, and biased. We developed an automated pipeline that uses LLms to generate structured decision scenarios and validates their complexity through a composite framework rooted in established task-complexity theory. We evaluated 4,238 scenarios across multiple domains and complexity tiers. Measurement validation met rigorous psychometric standards. Agreement among five independent model families was nearly perfect, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a kappa of 0.971. Known-groups validity demonstrated large separation between tiers, with an eta-squared of 0.587 and all pairwise comparisons significant at p less than .001. Factor analysis revealed a dominant complexity construct, with loadings between 0.87 and 0.96 across three frameworks, while interactivity formed a weaker secondary dimension at 0.34. Discriminant validity was limited by a strong relationship between complexity and text length that persisted after controlling for tier, yielding a partial correlation of 0.86. This constrains construct purity but does not undermine the instrument's tier-grading function. Model analyses showed a negative association between throughput and schema pass rate (r = -0.967, p = .007, n = 5), suggesting a speed-quality trade-off, though largely driven by one high-throughput model. Llama 4 Maverick generated scenarios fastest at 134 per minute versus 25 for DeepSeek Chat V3.2, but underproduced complex-tier scenarios, whereas DeepSeek Chat V3.2 balanced domain coverage with high schema compliance. The system demonstrated strong psychometric properties, enabling reliable classification into Simple, Moderate, and Complex tiers and providing the measurement infrastructure needed for downstream cognitive assessment of AI systems

Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC): A Theoretical Framework for Process-Oriented Cognitive Evaluation of Text-Based AI Systems

Evaluating artificial intelligence systems has historically relied on outcome-based benchmarks that measure task accuracy, robustness, or fairness. While indispensable, these benchmarks provide limited diagnostic insight into the underlying cognitive processes that generate performance-leaving critical questions unanswered about how AI systems reason, integrate memory, manage complexity, or avoid generating false information. This paper introduces the Multi-Dimensional Assessment for AI Cognition (MAAC), a theoretically grounded framework for shifting evaluation from what text-based AI systems produce to how they think. MAAC defines nine cognitively motivated dimensions: Cognitive Load, Tool Execution, Content Quality, Memory Integration, Complexity Handling, Hallucination Control, Knowledge Transfer, Processing Efficiency, and Process-Outcome Alignment. Each dimension is grounded in established cognitive science theory-drawing on Marr's tri-level hypothesis, Baddeley's working memory model, Sweller's cognitive load theory, and unified theories of cognition. Five theoretical analyses provide initial support for the framework's coherence and empirical testability: dimension-to-theory mapping; a coverage matrix assessing breadth and non-redundancy; a formal gap analysis relative to current evaluation practice; a worked diagnostic illustration; and a set of a priori interdependency predictions for future empirical testing. MAAC provides a theoretical and operational framework for principled process-level cognitive assessment of text-based AI systems, complementing existing outcome-based benchmarks with cognitively grounded, multi-dimensional evaluation.