Do LLMs Know What They Know? Measuring Metacognitive Efficiency with Signal Detection Theory
Standard evaluation of LLM confidence relies on calibration metrics (ECE, Brier score) that conflate two capacities: how much a model knows (Type-1 accuracy) and how well its confidence signal tracks that knowledge (Type-2 metacognitive sensitivity). We apply Signal Detection Theory to decompose them, treating token-level normalised log-probability as a graded confidence variable and answer correctness as the state to be discriminated. We characterise the Type-2 ROC of this signal, including its unequal-variance structure via z-ROC analysis, and -- because the meta-d' efficiency ratio is not well defined for open-ended QA, which lacks a two-alternative Type-1 decision -- quantify efficiency with a model-free information measure, normalised metacognitive information (meta-I_2r). Across four LLMs and 224,000 factual QA trials we find: (1) metacognitive information varies by a factor of 1.98 across models and is not predicted by accuracy, the rank correlation being -0.80 on TriviaQA and +0.00 on Natural Questions; (2) the confidence signal has model-specific unequal-variance structure (z-ROC slopes 0.78 to 1.18) invisible to calibration metrics, the slope ordering replicating on NQ; (3) efficiency is domain-specific, weakest in Science & Technology for every model; (4) temperature dissociates accuracy from metacognitive information, which stays near-flat for three of four models while accuracy falls; and (5) metacognitive information tracks the accuracy gain from confidence-based abstention exactly (rho = +1.00) while accuracy does not. All estimates carry permutation nulls and bootstrap confidence intervals. This version (v3) corrects a differential length bias in the automated correctness scorer, validated against 1,830 human adjudications; the inverse accuracy-efficiency coupling reported in v1 and v2 does not survive relabelling. See the version note on page 1.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
ValueDCG: Measuring Comprehensive Human Value Understanding Ability of Language Models
Personal values are a crucial factor behind human decision-making. Considering that Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to impact human decisions significantly, it is essential to make sure they accurately under…
Decision MakingCUTE: Measuring LLMs' Understanding of Their Tokens
Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable performance on a wide variety of tasks. Most LLMs split text into multi-character tokens and process them as atomic units without direct access to individual characters. This …
PATCH! {P}sychometrics-{A}ssis{T}ed Ben{CH}marking of Large Language Models against Human Populations: A Case Study of Proficiency in 8th Grade Mathematics
Many existing benchmarks of large (multimodal) language models (LLMs) focus on measuring LLMs' academic proficiency, often with also an interest in comparing model performance with human test takers'. While such benchmar…
BenchmarkingFrom Where Things Are to What They Are For: Benchmarking Spatial-Functional Intelligence in Multimodal LLMs
Human-level agentic intelligence extends beyond low-level geometric perception, evolving from recognizing where things are to understanding what they are for. While existing benchmarks effectively evaluate the geometric …
Relational ReasoningSpatial ReasoningEmpirically evaluating commonsense intelligence in large language models with large-scale human judgments
Commonsense intelligence in machines is often assessed by static benchmarks that compare a model's output against human-prescribed correct labels. An important, albeit implicit, assumption of these labels is that they ac…
Common Sense Reasoning