Metacognitive Sensitivity for Test-Time Dynamic Model Selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
A key aspect of human cognition is metacognition - the ability to assess one's own knowledge and judgment reliability. While deep learning models can express confidence in their predictions, they often suffer from poor calibration, a cognitive bias where expressed confidence does not reflect true competence. Do models truly know what they know? Drawing from human cognitive science, we propose a new framework for evaluating and leveraging AI metacognition. We introduce meta-d', a psychologically-grounded measure of metacognitive sensitivity, to characterise how reliably a model's confidence predicts its own accuracy. We then use this dynamic sensitivity score as context for a bandit-based arbiter that performs test-time model selection, learning which of several expert models to trust for a given task. Our experiments across multiple datasets and deep learning model combinations (including CNNs and VLMs) demonstrate that this metacognitive approach improves joint-inference accuracy over constituent models. This work provides a novel behavioural account of AI models, recasting ensemble selection as a problem of evaluating both short-term signals (confidence prediction scores) and medium-term traits (metacognitive sensitivity).
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Dec 2025.
Builds on
24 of 40 references.
References · 24
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
- 2017Outrageously Large Neural Networks: The Sparsely-Gated Mixture-of-Experts Layercited by 3,509
- 2018ImageNet-trained CNNs are biased towards texture; increasing shape bias improves accuracy and robustnesscited by 1,432
- 2025Cognitive Behaviors that Enable Self-Improving Reasoners, or, Four Habits of Highly Effective STaRscited by 377
- 2021Ensemble deep learning: A reviewcited by 284
- 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 110
- 2024Uni-MoE: Scaling Unified Multimodal LLMs with Mixture of Expertscited by 108
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Mixture-of-Experts: Algorithms, Theory, and Applicationscited by 91
- 2019Self-supervised Domain Adaptation for Computer Vision Taskscited by 58
- 2024CuMo: Scaling Multimodal LLM with Co-Upcycled Mixture-of-Expertscited by 56
- 2024Auxiliary task demands mask the capabilities of smaller language modelscited by 54
- 2017The Relative Performance of Ensemble Methods with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Image Classificationcited by 50
12 more
- 2025Language Models Fail to Introspect About Their Knowledge of Languagecited by 30
- 2025Large Language Models Are Human-Like Internallycited by 29
- 2025Re-evaluating Theory of Mind evaluation in large language modelscited by 23
- 2025Metacognition and Uncertainty Communication in Humans and Large Language Modelscited by 23
- 2023How poor is the stimulus? Evaluating hierarchical generalization in neural networks trained on child-directed speechcited by 22
- 2025Privileged Self-Access Matters for Introspection in AIcited by 22
- 2023In-Context Learning Dynamics with Random Binary Sequencescited by 13
- 2024Human-like Affective Cognition in Foundation Modelscited by 13
- 2025Large (Vision) Language Models are Unsupervised In-Context Learnerscited by 6
- 2018META-DES.H: a dynamic ensemble selection technique using meta-learning and a dynamic weighting approachcited by 4
- 2025Joint Decision-Making in Robot Teleoperation: When are Two Heads Better Than One?cited by 2
- 2025Divide, Specialize, and Route: A New Approach to Efficient Ensemble Learningcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
- 2026Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunities13 Jul 2026
- 2026Measuring (some aspects of) the metacognition of AI31 Mar 2026