This paper asks whether a bounded neural architecture can exhibit a meaningful division of labor between intuition and deliberation on a classic 64-item syllogistic reasoning benchmark. More broadly, the benchmark is relevant to ongoing debates about world models and multi-stage reasoning in AI. It provides a controlled setting for testing whether a learned system can develop structured internal computation rather than only one-shot associative prediction. Experiment 1 evaluates a direct neural baseline for predicting full 9-way human response distributions under 5-fold cross-validation. Experiment 2 introduces a bounded dual-path architecture with separate intuition and deliberation pathways, motivated by computational mental-model theory (Khemlani & Johnson-Laird, 2022). Under cross-validation, bounded intuition reaches an aggregate correlation of r = 0.7272, whereas bounded deliberation reaches r = 0.8152, and the deliberation advantage is significant across folds (p = 0.0101). The largest held-out gains occur for NVC, Eca, and Oca, suggesting improved handling of rejection responses and c-a conclusions. A canonical 80:20 interpretability run and a five-seed stability sweep further indicate that the deliberation pathway develops sparse, differentiated internal structure, including an Oac-leaning state, a dominant workhorse state, and several weakly used or unused states whose exact indices vary across runs. These findings are consistent with reasoning-like internal organization under bounded conditions, while stopping short of any claim that the model reproduces full sequential processes of model construction, counterexample search, and conclusion revision.

翻译：暂无翻译