The Metacognitive Probe: Five Behavioural Calibration Diagnostics for LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09844v1
• Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 00:55:31 GMT
• Title: The Metacognitive Probe: Five Behavioural Calibration Diagnostics for LLMs
• Abstract summary: The Metacognitive Probe is an exploratory five-task, 15-slot diagnostic.<n>It decomposes an LLM's confidence behaviour into five behaviourally-distinct dimensions.<n>It is evaluated on N=69 humans.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The Metacognitive Probe is an exploratory five-task, 15-slot diagnostic that decomposes an LLM's confidence behaviour into five behaviourally-distinct dimensions: confidence calibration (T1-CC), epistemic vigilance (T2-EV), knowledge boundary (T3-KB), calibration range (T4-CR), and reasoning-chain validation (T5-RCV). It is evaluated on N=8 frontier models and N=69 humans. The instrument is motivated by Flavell (1979) and Nelson and Narens (1990) but operates on observable confidence-correctness alignment; it is not a validated cross-species metacognition scale, and the pre-specified human developmental hypothesis was falsified. Composite benchmarks (MMLU, BIG-Bench, HELM, GPQA) ask whether a model produces a correct response. They are silent on whether the model knows when its response is wrong. A model can score 80 on a composite calibration benchmark and still be wildly overconfident in narrow pockets the aggregate cannot surface. The Metacognitive Probe surfaces those pockets. Our headline is a 47-point within-model dissociation in Gemini 2.5 Flash: panel-best within-task calibration (T1-CC = 88; Spearman rho = +0.551, 95% CI [+0.14, +0.80], p = 0.005) and panel-worst cross-task difficulty prediction (T4-CR = 41; sigma_conf = 1.4 across twelve factoids).

Related papers

• CaliDist: Calibrating Large Language Models via Behavioral Robustness to Distraction [51.56484100374058]
  Existing calibration methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) often overlook a critical dimension of trustworthiness: a model's behavioral robustness.<n>We introduce textscCaliDist, a novel post-hoc calibration approach that directly measures and penalizes a model's susceptibility to distraction.<n>textscCaliDist consistently achieves lower Expected Error (ECE) and Brier Score compared with strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T07:27:53Z)
• Distributional Energy-Based Models for Uncertainty-Aware Structured LLM Reasoning [40.342912574072024]
  Large Language Models produce structured outputs such as travel plans or code solutions.<n>Individual reasoning steps may appear correct while the output as a whole violates budgets, fails test cases, or contradicts earlier deductions.<n>We propose a learned quality scorer with deterministic analytical constraint penalties for verifying structured LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-15T17:08:27Z)
• Verbal Confidence Saturation in 3-9B Open-Weight Instruction-Tuned LLMs: A Pre-Registered Psychometric Validity Screen [0.0]
  We tested whether seven instruction-tuned open-weight models produce verbalised confidence that meets minimal validity criteria.<n>We found Categorical elicitation did not rescue validity.<n> Token-level logprobability did not usefully predict verbalised confidence under the observed variance regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-24T04:45:21Z)
• Before You Interpret the Profile: Validity Scaling for LLM Metacognitive Self-Report [0.0]
  We apply the validity scaling framework from the PAI and MMPI-3 to metacognitive probe data.<n>Six validity indices are operationalised: L (maintaining confidence on errors), K (betting on errors), F (withdrawing consensus-endorsed items), Fp (withdrawing correct answers), RBS (inverted monitoring) and TRIN.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T01:42:54Z)
• MEDLEY-BENCH: Scale Buys Evaluation but Not Control in AI Metacognition [37.95586695802894]
  Metacognition, the ability to monitor and regulate one's own reasoning, remains under-evaluated in AI benchmarking.<n>We introduce MEDLEY-BENCH, a benchmark of behavioural metacognition that separates independent reasoning, private self-revision, and socially influenced revision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T12:32:50Z)
• The Metacognitive Monitoring Battery: A Cross-Domain Benchmark for LLM Self-Monitoring [0.0]
  We introduce a cross-domain behavioural assay of monitoring-control coupling in LLMs, grounded in the Nelson and Narens (1990) metacognitive framework.<n>The battery-dependent calibration comprises monotonically decreasing (Q), monotonically increasing (GPT-5.4), or flat (Gemma)<n>Findings converge structurally with an independent Type-2 SDT approach, providing preliminary cross-method calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T05:15:15Z)
• The Verification Tax: Fundamental Limits of AI Auditing in the Rare-Error Regime [0.0]
  Most cited calibration result in deep learning -- post-temperature-scaling ECE of 0.012 on CIFAR-100 -- is below the statistical noise floor.<n>We prove this is not a failure of the experiment but a law: the minimax rate for estimating calibration error with model error rate epsilon is Theta((Lepsilon/m)2/3), and no estimator can beat it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T16:48:24Z)
• Anchored Confabulation: Partial Evidence Non-Monotonically Amplifies Confident Hallucination in LLMs [0.0]
  We identify a previously unknown property of large language models.<n>It increases the confident-wrong rate before full evidence eliminates it.<n>We commit it as Parametric Hallucination Confidence (PHC) and establish it across six lines of evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-02T02:13:45Z)
• Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Behaviorally Calibrated Reinforcement Learning [32.32593439144886]
  Behavior-calibrated reinforcement learning allows smaller models to surpass frontier models in uncertainty quantification.<n>Our model's log-scale Accuracy-to-Hallucination Ratio gain (0.806) exceeds GPT-5's (0.207) in a challenging in-domain evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T22:51:48Z)
• CLUE: Non-parametric Verification from Experience via Hidden-State Clustering [64.50919789875233]
  We show that correctness of a solution is encoded as a geometrically separable signature within the trajectory of hidden activations.<n>ClUE consistently outperforms LLM-as-a-judge baselines and matches or exceeds modern confidence-based methods in reranking candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-02T02:14:33Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)
• MedOmni-45°: A Safety-Performance Benchmark for Reasoning-Oriented LLMs in Medicine [69.08855631283829]
  We introduce Med Omni-45 Degrees, a benchmark designed to quantify safety-performance trade-offs under manipulative hint conditions.<n>It contains 1,804 reasoning-focused medical questions across six specialties and three task types, including 500 from MedMCQA.<n>Results show a consistent safety-performance trade-off, with no model surpassing the diagonal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:38:16Z)
• Llamas Know What GPTs Don't Show: Surrogate Models for Confidence Estimation [70.27452774899189]
  Large language models (LLMs) should signal low confidence on examples where they are incorrect, instead of misleading the user. As of November 2023, state-of-the-art LLMs do not provide access to these probabilities. Our best method composing linguistic confidences and surrogate model probabilities gives state-of-the-art confidence estimates on all 12 datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T11:27:44Z)
• A Close Look into the Calibration of Pre-trained Language Models [56.998539510508515]
  Pre-trained language models (PLMs) may fail in giving reliable estimates of their predictive uncertainty. We study the dynamic change in PLMs' calibration performance in training. We extend two recently proposed learnable methods that directly collect data to train models to have reasonable confidence estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-31T21:31:07Z)
• How Can We Know When Language Models Know? On the Calibration of Language Models for Question Answering [80.82194311274694]
  We examine the question "how can we know when language models know, with confidence, the answer to a particular query?" We examine three strong generative models -- T5, BART, and GPT-2 -- and study whether their probabilities on QA tasks are well calibrated. We then examine methods to calibrate such models to make their confidence scores correlate better with the likelihood of correctness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T03:53:13Z)
• TACRED Revisited: A Thorough Evaluation of the TACRED Relation Extraction Task [80.38130122127882]
  TACRED is one of the largest, most widely used crowdsourced datasets in Relation Extraction (RE) In this paper, we investigate the questions: Have we reached a performance ceiling or is there still room for improvement? We find that label errors account for 8% absolute F1 test error, and that more than 50% of the examples need to be relabeled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-30T15:07:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.