In-Context Neurofeedback: Can LLMs Control Their Internal Representations through Privileged Access?
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Whether large language models (LLMs) can control their own internal representations matters for both machine metacognition and AI safety. A recent study applied neurofeedback to LLMs and claimed that they can control their internal representations. However, the reported control may rely on superficial mechanisms rather than genuine internal access because the control targets in that study are not privileged, meaning that a third party can infer them from the prompt. We redesign the neurofeedback paradigm for LLMs so that the control target satisfies the privileged access requirement, which is closer to neurofeedback experiments in human cognitive neuroscience. Under this stricter setting, the models do not demonstrate reliable control over privileged internal representations, suggesting that previously reported control cannot exclude the possibility that it relies on superficial mechanisms. Our results indicate that rigorous assessments of metacognition in LLMs require evaluation methods that demand privileged access.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
23 of 47 references.
References · 23
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 922
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
- 2020Aligning AI With Shared Human Valuescited by 723
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 384
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 249
- 2024Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Modelscited by 235
- 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 113
- 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 91
11 more
- 2024SelfIE: Self-Interpretation of Large Language Model Embeddingscited by 67
- 2025Reasoning Models Better Express Their Confidencecited by 65
- 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
- 2024LatentQA: Teaching LLMs to Decode Activations Into Natural Languagecited by 51
- 2025Language Models Are Capable of Metacognitive Monitoring and Control of Their Internal Activationscited by 41
- 2025Language Models Fail to Introspect About Their Knowledge of Languagecited by 30
- 2025Training Language Models to Explain Their Own Computationscited by 30
- 2026Reasoning Models Struggle to Control their Chains of Thoughtcited by 25
- 2025Privileged Self-Access Matters for Introspection in AIcited by 22
- 2025Learning to Interpret Weight Differences in Language Modelscited by 11
- 2016Differential activation patterns in the same brain region led to opposite emotional statescited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.