metasignal: A Python Package for Comprehensive Metacognitive Analysis and Decision-Making

Standard evaluation of LLM confidence relies on calibration metrics (ECE, Brier score) that conflate how much a model knows (Type-1 accuracy) with how well its confidence signal tracks that knowledge (Type-2 metacognitive sensitivity). We apply Signal Detection Theory (SDT) to decompose these capacities, 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 metacognitive efficiency with a model-free information measure, normalised metacognitive information (meta-I_2r). Applied to four LLMs (Llama-3-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3, Llama-3-8B-Base, Gemma-2-9B-Instruct) across 224,000 factual QA trials, we find: (1) metacognitive information varies more than two-fold across models and co-varies inversely with accuracy -- the least accurate model has the most informative confidence -- though with four models this ordering cannot be separated from an error-difficulty confound, so we report it as coupling, not decoupling; (2) the confidence signal has model-specific unequal-variance structure (z-ROC slopes 0.81 to 1.18) invisible to calibration metrics; (3) metacognitive information is domain-specific, strongest in Arts & Literature for every model; (4) temperature dissociates Type-1 accuracy from metacognitive information, which stays stable while accuracy shifts. All estimates carry permutation nulls and bootstrap confidence intervals. Pre-registered; code and data public.

A robust decision-making process must take into account uncertainty, especially when the choice involves inherent risks. Because artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into decision-making workflows, managing uncertainty relies more and more on the metacognitive capabilities of these systems; i.e, their ability to assess the reliability of and regulate their own decisions. Hence, it is crucial to employ robust methods to measure the metacognitive abilities of AI. This paper is primarily a methodological contribution arguing for the adoption of the meta-d' framework as the gold standard for assessing the metacognitive sensitivity of AIs--the ability to generate confidence ratings that distinguish correct from incorrect responses. Moreover, we propose to leverage signal detection theory (SDT) to measure the ability of AIs to spontaneously regulate their decisions based on uncertainty and risk. To demonstrate the practical utility of these psychophysical frameworks, we conduct two series of experiments on three large language models (LLMs)--GPT-5, DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp, and Mistral-Medium-2508.

Meta-analysis is a demanding form of evidence synthesis that combines literature retrieval, PI/ECO-guided study selection, and statistical aggregation. Its structured, verifiable workflow makes it an ideal substrate for evaluating systematic scientific reasoning, yet existing benchmarks lack ground truth across the full retrieval-screening-synthesis pipeline. We introduce MetaSyn, a dataset of 442 expert-curated meta-analyses from Nature Portfolio journals. Each entry pairs a research question with PI/ECO criteria, a retrieval corpus of 140k PubMed articles, verified positive studies, hard negatives that are topically similar but PI/ECO-ineligible, and complete search strategies and date bounds. Benchmarking twelve pipeline configurations (nine RAG variants and a protocol-driven agent) reveals a critical screening bottleneck: despite a retrieval ceiling of 90.9% recall at K=200, no system recovers more than 52.7% of ground-truth included literature. Current LLMs fail to reliably separate eligible studies from PI/ECO-failing distractors in pools of comparable topical relevance. Stage-attributed metrics capture where systems succeed and fail; a single end-to-end score does not.