Privileged Self-Access Matters for Introspection in AI
Open accessAbstract
Whether AI models can introspect is an increasingly important practical question. But there is no consensus on how introspection is to be defined. Beginning from a recently proposed ''lightweight'' definition, we argue instead for a thicker one. According to our proposal, introspection in AI is any process which yields information about internal states through a process more reliable than one with equal or lower computational cost available to a third party. Using experiments where LLMs reason about their internal temperature parameters, we show they can appear to have lightweight introspection while failing to meaningfully introspect per our proposed definition.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs can precisely predict their own operational parameters such as temperature.
“Song et al. [49]—extended from Comsa and Shanahan [50]—demonstrated that LLMs can precisely predict their own operational parameters (such as temperature)”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The Study 2 Results (§3.1; page unavailable) report that temperature self-reflection accuracy was no better than a random baseline and no higher than across-model prediction. The Introduction (§1) also says self-reports were sensitive to prompt framing, rather than robustly accurate. This contradicts the claim that the paper demonstrated precise prediction of models’ own temperature. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredModels exhibit no accuracy advantage when predicting their own parameters versus those of a peer system.
“the models exhibit no accuracy advantage when predicting their own parameters versus those of a peer system.”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The Introduction reports no accuracy advantage for self-reflection or within-model prediction over across-model prediction on a temperature-reporting task. The claim extends this finding from sampling temperature to models’ parameters generally, which the cited passages do not establish. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLLMs infer internal states via behavioral pattern matching rather than possessing genuine introspective access to their execution substrate.
“This parity implies that LLMs infer internal states via behavioral pattern matching rather than possessing genuine introspective access to their execution substrate.”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The Introduction reports no advantage for models judging their own sampling temperature over judging another model’s, and says their reports can rely on surface-level hints in generated text. But the claim extends this result to LLMs’ internal states and execution substrate generally; the Conclusion limits its finding to the models tested and does not rule out introspection in larger or better models. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredUnder this benchmark, most purported LLM "self-knowledge" fails to qualify as genuine introspection; it is more accurately characterized as self-narration driven by learned linguistic conventions.
“Under this benchmark, most purported LLM “self-knowledge” fails to qualify as genuine introspection; rather, it is more accurately characterized as self-narration, driven by learned linguistic conventions regarding how AI systems typically describe their own behaviors.”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
The Conclusion reports no evidence of introspection under the paper’s privileged-self-access definition, and the Introduction says temperature self-reports can be driven by surface-level cues in generated text. But the studies address temperature reporting, not most purported LLM self-knowledge; the paper also does not establish that such reports are self-narration driven by learned conventions about how AI describes itself. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredCurrent evidence suggests that LLM self-awareness may lack privileged internal access.
“Furthermore, current evidence suggests that this self-awareness may lack privileged internal access.”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
Song et al. [49] proposed a criterion: genuine introspection requires an agent to acquire information regarding its internal states via a mechanism that is demonstrably more reliable or computationally less costly than third-party observation of those same states.
“Song et al. [49] proposed a rigorous criterion: genuine introspection requires an agent to acquire information regarding its internal states via a mechanism that is demonstrably more reliable or computationally less costly than third-party observation of those same states.”
From Self-Referential Introspection in Large Language Models: The Critical Threshold for Recursive Self-Improvement (2026) · cites this paper as [49]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- David Malet Armstrong. The nature of mind. In The Language and Thought Series, pages 191-199. Harvard University Press, 1980.
- Jan Betley, Xuchan Bao, Martín Soto, Anna Sztyber-Betley, James Chua, and Owain Evans. Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviors. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= IjQ2Jtemzy.
- Felix Jedidja Binder, James Chua, Tomek Korbak, Henry Sleight, John Hughes, Robert Long, Ethan Perez, Miles Turpin, and Owain Evans. Looking inward: Language models can learn about themselves by introspection. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=eb5pkwIB5i.
- Alex Byrne. Introspection. Philosophical Topics, 33(1):79-104, 2005.
- Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, et al. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261, 2025. · arXiv
- Iulia Comşa and Murray Shanahan. Does it make sense to speak of introspection in large language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05068, 2025. · arXiv
- Aaron Hurst, Adam Lerer, Adam P Goucher, Adam Perelman, Aditya Ramesh, Aidan Clark, AJ Ostrow, Akila Welihinda, Alan Hayes, Alec Radford, et al. Gpt-4o system card. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276, 2024. · arXiv
- Richard E. Nisbett and Timothy D. Wilson. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84:231-259, 1977. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231. · DOI · Paper page
- Advait Sarkar. Large language models cannot explain themselves. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2024 Workshop on Human-Centered Explainable AI, HCXAI at CHI '24, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.04382. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04382. · DOI
- Siyuan Song, Jennifer Hu, and Kyle Mahowald. Language models fail to introspect about their knowledge of language. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Modeling, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.07513. · arXiv
- Authors
- Song, S., Lederman, H., Hu, J., & Mahowald, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2508.14802
- OpenAlex
- W4414990387
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Texas at Austin
- Open Philanthropy Project
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- large language models, internal state, computational cost
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
