# The Metacognitive Probe: Five Behavioural Calibration Diagnostics for LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.09844 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.09844/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.07958/) (2021)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14334/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The Metacognitive Probe is an exploratory five-task, 15-slot diagnostic that decomposes an LLM's confidence behaviour into five behaviourally-distinct dimensions: confidence calibration (T1-CC), epistemic vigilance (T2-EV), knowledge boundary (T3-KB), calibration range (T4-CR), and reasoning-chain validation (T5-RCV). It is evaluated on N=8 frontier models and N=69 humans. The instrument is motivated by Flavell (1979) and Nelson and Narens (1990) but operates on observable confidence-correctness alignment; it is not a validated cross-species metacognition scale, and the pre-specified human developmental hypothesis was falsified. Composite benchmarks (MMLU, BIG-Bench, HELM, GPQA) ask whether a model produces a correct response. They are silent on whether the model knows when its response is wrong. A model can score 80 on a composite calibration benchmark and still be wildly overconfident in narrow pockets the aggregate cannot surface. The Metacognitive Probe surfaces those pockets. Our headline is a 47-point within-model dissociation in Gemini 2.5 Flash: panel-best within-task calibration (T1-CC = 88; Spearman rho = +0.551, 95% CI [+0.14, +0.80], p = 0.005) and panel-worst cross-task difficulty prediction (T4-CR = 41; sigma_conf = 1.4 across twelve factoids).