Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check

Summary

A new study questions whether large language models have genuine introspective abilities, arguing that current evidence may reflect pattern matching on surface cues rather than true metacognitive monitoring.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Shashwat Singh, Tal Linzen, Shauli Ravfogel
Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[2605.26242] Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check

[Submitted on 25 May 2026]

Title:Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check

View a PDF of the paper titled Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check, by Shashwat Singh and 2 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Can large language models detect and report their own internal states? A number of studies have argued that the answer to this question is yes. We argue, based on lessons from human metacognition research, that this conclusion may be premature: to be convinced of this conclusion we need to distinguish genuine introspection from pattern matching based on surface-level cues. Furthermore, we argue that behavioral evidence alone is inherently insufficient to establish strong introspective claims.

We re-examine two recently introduced evaluation paradigms in light of this consideration. In the first paradigm, models are expected to detect whether their internal states have been tampered with. We find that models cannot reliably distinguish such interventions on their internal states from manipulations of the input, suggesting that their success in the original studies reflects their ability to detect anomalies more generally, as opposed to interventions on their internal states in particular. In the second paradigm we examine, models are tasked with predicting labels derived from their own hidden states. Here, we find that classifiers that only have access to the input achieve equivalent performance to the model's own in-context predictions, indicating that the original results do not conclusively demonstrate that the model has privileged access to its internal representations. We further introduce a relabeled control setting, where models cannot rely on the semantics of the task to solve it, and instead must rely on the internal representation; models perform closer to chance on this better-controlled version of the task. Taken together, these results indicate that current evidence is insufficient to establish that LLMs display metacognitive monitoring.

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2605.26242 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2605.26242v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.26242

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Shashwat Singh [view email] [v1] Mon, 25 May 2026 18:07:49 UTC (25,205 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Can LLMs Introspect? A Reality Check, by Shashwat Singh and 2 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-05

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

InvestorsAdvanced

Key points

  • LLMs cannot reliably detect tampering with their internal states; their success may stem from general anomaly detection.
  • In hidden state prediction tasks, input-only classifiers match model performance, suggesting no privileged access to internal representations.
  • A relabeled control task reveals near-chance performance, further undermining claims of introspection.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.