How Metacognitive Architectures Remember Their Own Thoughts: A Systematic Review
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Background: Metacognition has gained significant attention for its potential to enhance autonomy and adaptability of artificial agents but remains a fragmented field: diverse theories, terminologies, and design choices have led to disjointed developments and limited comparability across systems. Existing overviews remain at a conceptual level that is undiscerning to the underlying algorithms, representations, and their respective success. Methods: We address this gap by performing an explorative systematic review. Reports were included if they described techniques enabling Computational Metacognitive Architectures (CMAs) to model, store, remember, and process their episodic metacognitive experiences, one of Flavell's (1979a) three foundational components of metacognition. Searches were conducted in 16 databases, consulted between December 2023 and June 2024. Data were extracted using a 20-item framework considering pertinent aspects. Results: A total of 101 reports on 35 distinct CMAs were included. Our findings show that metacognitive experiences may boost system performance and explainability, e.g., via self-repair. However, lack of standardization and limited evaluations may hinder progress: only 17% of CMAs were quantitatively evaluated regarding this review's focus, and significant terminological inconsistency limits cross-architecture synthesis. Systems also varied widely in memory content, data types, and employed algorithms. Discussion: Limitations include the non-iterative nature of the search query, heterogeneous data availability, and an under-representation of emergent, sub-symbolic CMAs. Future research should focus on standardization and evaluation, e.g., via community-driven challenges, and on transferring promising principles to emergent architectures.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 75 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Feb 2025.
Builds on
11 of 75 references.
References · 11
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2023Are Emergent Abilities of Large Language Models a Mirage?cited by 515
- 2023Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) 2.0: A Manifesto of Open Challenges and Interdisciplinary Research Directionscited by 123
- 2024Making Reasoning Matter: Measuring and Improving Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 108
- 2024Chain of Thoughtlessness? An Analysis of CoT in Planningcited by 100
- 2024Metacognitive Capabilities of LLMs: An Exploration in Mathematical Problem Solvingcited by 82
- 2022A Memory System of a Robot Cognitive Architecture and its Implementation in ArmarXcited by 11
- 2025Unlocking the Black Box: Analysing the EU Artificial Intelligence Act's Framework for Explainability in AIcited by 11
- 2022Open Tracing Tools: Overview and Critical Comparisoncited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.