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.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2608. 15400v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are notorious for struggling with assessing their own uncertainty, detecting knowledge conflicts, or recognizing when problems exceed their expertise; such limitations inevitably undermine reliability and trust in LLMs.
arXiv:2603. 29693v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks.
arXiv:2606. 32032v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Metacognition is a critical component of intelligence that describes the ability to monitor and regulate one's own cognitive processes.
The study trains ten open‑weight large language models (LLMs) to predict their own accuracy on factual multiple‑choice questions before answering. Results show that the models’ confidence signals split into two distinct patterns: early in training, confidence aligns with output consistency (how concentrated the answer distribution is), while later, it aligns with true accuracy but only on data similar to the training set. This indicates that calibration training may not universally teach LLMs to detect their own errors.
arXiv:2603. 25112v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard evaluation of LLM confidence relies on calibration metrics (ECE, Brier score) that conflate how much a model knows (Type-1 accuracy) with how well its confidence signal tracks that knowledge (Type-2 metacognitive sensitivity).