The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can control their own internal representations, a question relevant to machine metacognition and AI safety. Previous work claimed such control using neurofeedback, but the targets were not privileged, allowing third‑party inference from prompts. By redesigning the paradigm to enforce privileged access—mirroring human neurofeedback experiments—the authors find that LLMs fail to reliably control these internal representations, indicating that earlier claims may have relied on superficial mechanisms.
By Koshiro Aoki, Ryota Takatsuki, Gouki Minegishi, Yusuke Haruki, Daisuke Kawahara
The paper questions whether large language models (LLMs) truly introspect by critiquing recent studies that claim they can detect and report their internal states. It proposes two necessary conditions for genuine introspection: privileged access to internal representations and second‑order computation that distinguishes from first‑order task performance. Re‑examining two existing paradigms, the authors find that apparent introspective abilities can be explained by input‑based classifiers or generic anomaly detection, concluding that current evidence does not support metacognitive monitoring in LLMs.
By Shashwat Singh, Tal Linzen, Shauli Ravfogel
The paper introduces a new method for measuring metacognitive abilities in large language models (LLMs) without relying on self-reports, instead testing how well models can use knowledge of their internal states. Using two experimental paradigms, the authors find that recent frontier LLMs can assess and use their own confidence when answering factual and reasoning questions, and can anticipate and appropriately employ the answers they would give. The study also shows that these abilities are limited in resolution, context-dependent, differ qualitatively from human metacognition, and vary across models with similar capabilities, suggesting post‑training processes influence metacognitive development.
By Christopher Ackerman
arXiv:2408. 05568v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally embedded stereotypes, influence moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups.
By Florian Scholten, Tobias R. Rebholz, Mandy H\"utter
arXiv:2606. 05976v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent works show that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces, despite their ability to correct errors from external sources.
By Kuan-Yen Chen, Fang-Yi Su, Shih-Yen Lin, Bao Li, Jung-Hsien Chiang
arXiv:2603.22161v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Metacognition -- assessing the quality of one's own cognitive performance -- guides adaptive behavior across species. Substantial research demonstr...
By Dharshan Kumaran, Nathaniel Daw, Simon Osindero, Petar Veli\v{c}kovi\'c, Viorica Patraucean
arXiv:2607. 25907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Activation steering controls model behavior by editing internal activations at inference time.
By Deepanshu Mody, Samarth Agarwal, Utkarsh Mittal, Dipesh Mahato
The paper argues that effective oversight of large language models (LLMs) depends on users’ ability to retrieve relevant information during review. Through two lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer‑facing employees, the authors demonstrate that self‑generated explanations and retrieval cues improve error detection and sustain it over repeated LLM use. They propose that information retrievability is a distinct precondition for oversight, and suggest lightweight onboarding explanations and daily cues as practical solutions.
By Xinyu Fu, Narayan Ramasubbu, Dennis Galletta
Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit sycophancy, where they agree with a user's statement even when incorrect. While sycophancy is often treated as a single defined behavior, it can manifest in substantially distinct ways and circumstances, raising the question of whether this multi-faceted nature is reflected in its internal mechanisms.
arXiv:2603. 29693v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks.
By Richard Servajean, Philippe Servajean
arXiv:2606. 05976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent work shows that LLM agents struggle to correct errors in their own reasoning traces yet show markedly higher correction rates when identical claims appear under external sources.
By Kuan-Yen Chen, Fang-Yi Su, Jung-Hsien Chiang
arXiv:2607. 11881v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Metacognition is a foundational component of intelligence critical to effective learning, problem solving, decision-making, communication, and more.
By Gabrielle Kaili-May Liu, Areeb Gani, Jacqueline Lu, Jordan Thomas, Mark Steyvers, Arman Cohan