MIRROR: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Metacognitive Calibration in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We introduce MIRROR, a benchmark comprising eight experiments across four metacognitive levels that evaluates whether large language models can use self-knowledge to make better decisions. We evaluate 16 models from 8 labs across approximately 250,000 evaluation instances using five independent behavioral measurement channels. Core experiments are run across the full model roster; experiments with specialized infrastructure requirements report explicitly marked model subsets. We find two phenomena with direct implications for agentic deployment: (1) compositional self-prediction fails universally -- the Compositional Calibration Error ranges from 0.500 to 0.943 on the original 15-model Exp3-v1 set (and 0.434 to 0.758 on the balanced 16-model Exp3-v2 expansion), indicating that models cannot predict their own performance on multi-domain tasks, and (2) models exhibit above-chance but imperfect domain-specific self-knowledge yet systematically fail to translate even this partial awareness into appropriate agentic action-selection -- external metacognitive control reduces the Confident Failure Rate from 0.600 to 0.143 (76% reduction at temperature 0; mean 70% at temperature 0.7 across 5 models from 4 labs). Providing models with their own calibration scores produces no significant improvement (p > 0.05); only architectural constraint is effective. This suggests that external metacognitive scaffolding -- not improved self-knowledge -- is the path to safer autonomous AI systems. Code, data, and Croissant metadata will be released publicly with the benchmark.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.
Builds on
21 of 40 references.
References · 21
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,386
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,195
- 2023GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistantscited by 1,128
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 1,040
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 836
- 2023SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Modelscited by 810
- 2023Augmented Language Models: a Surveycited by 403
- 2023Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 324
- 2023Generating with Confidence: Uncertainty Quantification for Black-box Large Language Modelscited by 293
- 2024Large Language Models Must Be Taught to Know What They Don't Knowcited by 100
9 more
- 2023Metacognitive Prompting Improves Understanding in Large Language Modelscited by 58
- 2025LLMs are Greedy Agents: Effects of RL Fine-tuning on Decision-Making Abilitiescited by 41
- 2025Agentic Knowledgeable Self-awarenesscited by 8
- 2026Learning When to Act or Refuse: Guarding Agentic Reasoning Models for Safe Multi-Step Tool Usecited by 8
- 2024Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Modelscited by 6
- 2025Monitor-Generate-Verify (MGV): Formalising Metacognitive Theory for Language Model Reasoningcited by 4
- 2026MetaCLASS: Metacognitive Coaching for Learning with Adaptive Self-regulation Supportcited by 2
- 2026MedCoG: Maximizing LLM Inference Density in Medical Reasoning via Meta-Cognitive Regulationcited by 2
- 2026AI, Metacognition, and the Verification Bottleneck: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study of Human Problem-Solvingcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 6.
6 papers.
- 2026Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunitiescited by 1
- 2026EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Design Their Own Evaluations?cited by 1
- 2026Reality Monitoring in Large Language Models: Self-Knowledge That Transforms with Conversation Memorycited by 0
- 2026Agentic Cognitive Depth: Operational Criteria for Evaluating LLM Agentscited by 0
- 2026Not Self-Decidable: LLMs Cannot Draw the Boundary of What an Agent Verifier Can Checkcited by 0
- 2026Agentic Self-Awareness: Aligning Knowing, Acting, and Holdingcited by 0
- 2026Agentic Self-Awareness: Aligning Knowing, Acting, and Holding13 Oct 2026
- 2026Not Self-Decidable: LLMs Cannot Draw the Boundary of What an Agent Verifier Can Check3 Oct 2026
- 2026EvalResearchBench: Can AI Agents Design Their Own Evaluations?3 Oct 2026
- 2026Agentic Cognitive Depth: Operational Criteria for Evaluating LLM Agents3 Oct 2026
- 2026Reality Monitoring in Large Language Models: Self-Knowledge That Transforms with Conversation Memory27 Jul 2026
- 2026Metacognition in LLMs: Foundations, Progress, and Opportunities13 Jul 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Decomposing and Steering Functional Metacognition in Large Language Models
- 2026MetaCogAgent: A Metacognitive Multi-Agent LLM Framework with Self-Aware Task Delegation
- 2025OmniReflect: Discovering Transferable Constitutions for LLM agents via Neuro-Symbolic Reflections
- 2026Reinforcement Learning with Metacognitive Feedback Elicits Faithful Uncertainty Expression in LLMs
- 2026LLMs Know When They Know, but Do Not Act on It: A Metacognitive Harness for Test-time Scaling
- 2026Think2: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026Learn Like Humans: Use Meta-cognitive Reflection for Efficient Self-Improvement
- 2025From Emergence to Control: Probing and Modulating Self-Reflection in Language Models