LLMs Show No Signs Of Individuated Metacognition

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24299v1
• Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 23:54:33 GMT
• Title: LLMs Show No Signs Of Individuated Metacognition
• Abstract summary: We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 Large Language Models.<n>We ask whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance.<n>We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.
• Score: 0.023227405857540805
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Confidence-weighted routing, selective abstention, and ensemble weighting all assume that a model's stated confidence is informative about its capability on the question being asked. They presume functional metacognition, the capacity to assess one's own capabilities, without exercising them. Aggregate calibration is well studied, with mixed results, but the underlying structure of elicited confidence is less well understood. We decompose binary confidence judgements from 20 frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) across six benchmarks using tetrachoric factor analysis paired with pairwise calibration, asking whether two models that differ in confidence also differ in performance. On factual recall and information retrieval benchmarks the cross-model confidence matrix is approximately rank-one and a single dominant factor captures most of the latent variance. Models retrieving facts share an item-level difficulty axis and differ mainly in their decision thresholds along it. Across all benchmarks the relationship between confidence and performance collapses once items that all models agree on are removed. Inter-model pairwise calibration is small even where statistically significant, and what remains shrinks to nothing once base-rate differences along the shared factor are controlled for. Mathematical reasoning is the apparent exception, but this turns out to be a confound where reasoning models answer questions about their confidence by trying to solve them in their chain of thought, bypassing the sub-symbolic self-knowledge we seek to measure. We find no evidence for significant verbalised individuated metacognition in any tested domain.

Related papers

• When Confidence Signals Disagree: Local and Global Confidence in Autoregressive Language Models [0.0]
  We investigate whether different confidence readouts are empirically interchangeable in an autoregressive language model.<n>Across MMLU and ARC Challenge, the two signals are weakly correlated and differ substantially in their association with correctness.<n>Larger local--global confidence gaps are associated with higher answer entropy, more distinct sampled answers, and lower modal-answer concentration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T10:08:48Z)
• DirEAG: Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation for Calibrating Verbalized Confidence in Mathematical Reasoning [2.867517731896504]
  Black-box verbalized confidence is difficult to calibrate in large language models.<n>We propose DirEAG, a Dirichlet Evidence Aggregation method that converts each elicited answer-confidence observation into calibrated soft evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T03:48:25Z)
• Confident but Conflicted: Internal Uncertainty and Cognitive Dissonance Resolution in LLMs [6.968805961712596]
  Large language models (LLMs) frequently encounter inputs that disagree with their prior outputs.<n>Dissonance can be resolved through persuasion, backfire, or immunity.<n>Trust Elasticity (TE) is an econometrics-inspired measure of how readily a model is persuaded toward conflicting evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-21T18:39:24Z)
• Latent Confidence Alignment for LLM Self-Assessment [8.73168195475753]
  We propose a Rasch model-based latent ability framework and a metacognitive perspective to measure the consistency between model self-assessment and the latent error probability implied by model ability and item difficulty.<n> Experiments on a medical-domain dataset with 20 models show that the proposed approach improves self-assessment quality without affecting model ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T08:13:31Z)
• Closing the Confidence-Faithfulness Gap in Large Language Models [3.122242683664973]
  Large language models verbalize confidence scores that are largely detached from their actual accuracy.<n>We present a mechanistic interpretability analysis of verbalized confidence.<n>We introduce a two-stage adaptive steering pipeline that reads the model's internal accuracy estimate and steers verbalized output to match it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-26T05:42:04Z)
• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Certainty robustness: Evaluating LLM stability under self-challenging prompts [0.5156484100374058]
  Large language models (LLMs) often present answers with high apparent confidence despite lacking an explicit mechanism for reasoning about certainty or truth.<n>We introduce the Certainty Robustness Benchmark, a two-turn evaluation framework that measures how LLMs balance stability and adaptability under self-challenging prompts.<n>Using 200 reasoning and mathematics questions from LiveBench, we evaluate four state-of-the-art LLMs and distinguish between justified self-corrections and unjustified answer changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T18:07:51Z)
• BrowseConf: Confidence-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Web Agents [58.05949210993854]
  We investigate whether search agents have the ability to communicate their own confidence through verbalized confidence scores after long sequences of actions.<n>We propose Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods that use confidence scores to determine answer quality, encourage the model to try again until reaching a satisfactory confidence level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:58:51Z)
• Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models [0.6091702876917281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable proficiency in natural language tasks.<n>Overconfidence-misalignment between predicted confidence and true correctness poses significant risks in critical decision-making applications.<n>We present a comprehensive analysis on calibration in LLMs across nine LLMs and three factual Question-Answering datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T07:46:09Z)
• Confidence in the Reasoning of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Confidence is measured in terms of persistence in keeping their answer when prompted to reconsider.<n> Confidence is only partially explained by the underlying token-level probability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T10:04:29Z)
• Fact-Level Confidence Calibration and Self-Correction [64.40105513819272]
  We propose a Fact-Level framework that calibrates confidence to relevance-weighted correctness at the fact level. We also develop Confidence-Guided Fact-level Self-Correction ($textbfConFix$), which uses high-confidence facts within a response as additional knowledge to improve low-confidence ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T14:15:18Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Improving the Reliability of Large Language Models by Leveraging Uncertainty-Aware In-Context Learning [76.98542249776257]
  Large-scale language models often face the challenge of "hallucination" We introduce an uncertainty-aware in-context learning framework to empower the model to enhance or reject its output in response to uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-07T12:06:53Z)
• Zero-shot Faithful Factual Error Correction [53.121642212060536]
  Faithfully correcting factual errors is critical for maintaining the integrity of textual knowledge bases and preventing hallucinations in sequence-to-sequence models. We present a zero-shot framework that formulates questions about input claims, looks for correct answers in the given evidence, and assesses the faithfulness of each correction based on its consistency with the evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-13T18:55:20Z)

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.