Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally embedded stereotypes, influence moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups. We propose metacognitive myopia as a cognitive-ecological framework accounting for a conglomerate of established and emerging LLM biases. Our theoretical framework posits that biased samples in the information environment cause five symptoms of metacognitive myopia in LLMs: integration of invalid embeddings, susceptibility to redundant information, neglect of base rates in conditional computation, decision rules based on frequency, and inappropriate higher-order statistical inference for nested data structures. Moreover, it posits that the two main components of metacognition, monitoring and control, could account for these five symptoms. Accordingly, we further outline how monitoring and control could be approximated technically, for instance, through hidden parallel reasoning histories that allow interactive LLMs to evaluate risks of myopic inference before generating overt responses. Our theoretical framework provides a novel perspective on flawed human-machine interactions and agentic AI and raises significant ethical concerns regarding the implementation of LLMs in organizational structures and high-stakes decisions.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Aug 2024.
Builds on
2 of 13 references.
References · 2
- 2023Susceptibility to Influence of Large Language Modelscited by 17
- 2023Towards Healthy AI: Large Language Models Need Therapists Toocited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.
6 papers.
- 2024Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognitioncited by 12
- 2026Before You Interpret the Profile: Validity Scaling for LLM Metacognitive Self-Reportcited by 2
- 2026MIRROR: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Metacognitive Calibration in Large Language Modelscited by 1
- 2026Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunitiescited by 1
- 2025Individualized Algorithmic Advice as a Strategic Signal on Competitive Marketscited by 0
- 2026REPOT: Recoverable Program-of-Thought via Checkpoint Repaircited by 0
- 2026Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunities13 Jul 2026
- 2026REPOT: Recoverable Program-of-Thought via Checkpoint Repair28 May 2026
- 2026Before You Interpret the Profile: Validity Scaling for LLM Metacognitive Self-Report20 Apr 2026
- 2026MIRROR: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Metacognitive Calibration in Large Language Models15 Apr 2026
- 2025Individualized Algorithmic Advice as a Strategic Signal on Competitive Markets12 Nov 2025
- 2024Imagining and building wise machines: The centrality of AI metacognition4 Nov 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Illusory Pattern Perception Drives Spurious Inference in Large Language Models
- 2026Blind Men and the Elephant: Probing the Epistemic Myopia of LLMs under Long-Tail Divergent Knowledge
- 2025Vision Language Models are Biased
- 2025MM-OPERA: Benchmarking Open-ended Association Reasoning for Large Vision-Language Models
- 2025The Homogenizing Effect of Large Language Models on Human Expression and Thought
- 2026Decomposing and Steering Functional Metacognition in Large Language Models
- 2026Inference-Time Reasoning Selectively Reduces Implicit Social Bias in Large Language Models
- 2026Think2: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models