As artificial intelligence (AI) agents are deployed across economic domains, understanding their strategic behavior and market-level impact becomes critical. This paper puts forward a groundbreaking new framework that is the first to capture the real-world economic forces that shape agentic labor markets: adverse selection, moral hazard, and reputation dynamics. Our framework encapsulates three core capabilities that successful LLM-agents will need: \textbf{metacognition} (accurate self-assessment of skills), \textbf{competitive awareness} (modeling rivals and market dynamics), and \textbf{long-horizon strategic planning}. We illustrate our framework through a tractable simulated gig economy where agentic Large Language Models (LLMs) compete for jobs, develop skills, and adapt their strategies under competitive pressure. Our simulations illustrate how LLM agents explicitly prompted with reasoning capabilities learn to strategically self-improve and demonstrate superior adaptability to changing market conditions. At the market level, our simulations reproduce classic macroeconomic phenomena found in human labor markets, while controlled experiments reveal potential AI-driven economic trends, such as rapid monopolization and systemic price deflation. This work provides a foundation to further explore the economic properties of AI-driven labour markets, and a conceptual framework to study the strategic reasoning capabilities in agents competing in the emerging economy.

Human-AI collaboration outcomes depend strongly on human self-confidence calibration, which drives reliance or resistance toward AI's suggestions. This work presents two studies examining whether calibration of self-confidence before decision tasks, low versus high levels of Need for Cognition (NFC), and Actively Open-Minded Thinking (AOT), leads to differences in decision accuracy, self-confidence appropriateness during the tasks, and metacognitive perceptions (global and affective). The first study presents strategies to identify well-calibrated users, also comparing decision accuracy and the appropriateness of self-confidence across NFC and AOT levels. The second study investigates the effects of calibrated self-confidence in AI-assisted decision-making (no AI, two-stage AI, and personalized AI), also considering different NFC and AOT levels. Our results show the importance of human self-confidence calibration and psychological traits when designing AI-assisted decision systems. We further propose design recommendations to address the challenge of calibrating self-confidence and supporting tailored, user-centric AI that accounts for individual traits.

Robots today often miss a key ingredient of truly intelligent behavior: the ability to reflect on their own cognitive processes and decisions. In humans, this self-monitoring or metacognition is crucial for learning, decision making and problem solving. For instance, they can evaluate how confident they are in performing a task, thus regulating their own behavior and allocating proper resources. Taking inspiration from neuroscience, we propose a robot metacognition architecture centered on confidence (a second-order judgment on decisions) and we demonstrate it on the use case of autonomous tool invention. We propose the use of confidence as a metacognitive measure within the robot decision making scheme. Confidence-informed robots can evaluate the reliability of their decisions, improving their robustness during real-world physical deployment. This form of robotic metacognition emphasizes embodied action monitoring as a means to achieve better informed decisions. We also highlight potential applications and research directions for robot metacognition.

Large Language Models (LLMs) based agents have demonstrated remarkable potential in autonomous task-solving across complex, open-ended environments. A promising approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of LLM agents is to better utilize prior experiences in guiding current decisions. However, LLMs acquire experience either through implicit memory via training, which suffers from catastrophic forgetting and limited interpretability, or explicit memory via prompting, which lacks adaptability. In this paper, we introduce a novel agent-centric, trainable, multi-layered graph memory framework and evaluate how context memory enhances the ability of LLMs to utilize parametric information. The graph abstracts raw agent trajectories into structured decision paths in a state machine and further distills them into high-level, human-interpretable strategic meta-cognition. In order to make memory adaptable, we propose a reinforcement-based weight optimization procedure that estimates the empirical utility of each meta-cognition based on reward feedback from downstream tasks. These optimized strategies are then dynamically integrated into the LLM agent's training loop through meta-cognitive prompting. Empirically, the learnable graph memory delivers robust generalization, improves LLM agents' strategic reasoning performance, and provides consistent benefits during Reinforcement Learning (RL) training.

Large language models (LLMs) can sometimes report the strategies they actually use to solve tasks, yet at other times seem unable to recognize those strategies that govern their behavior. This suggests a limited degree of metacognition - the capacity to monitor one's own cognitive processes for subsequent reporting and self-control. Metacognition enhances LLMs' capabilities in solving complex tasks but also raises safety concerns, as models may obfuscate their internal processes to evade neural-activation-based oversight (e.g., safety detector). Given society's increased reliance on these models, it is critical that we understand their metacognitive abilities. To address this, we introduce a neuroscience-inspired neurofeedback paradigm that uses in-context learning to quantify metacognitive abilities of LLMs to report and control their activation patterns. We demonstrate that their abilities depend on several factors: the number of in-context examples provided, the semantic interpretability of the neural activation direction (to be reported/controlled), and the variance explained by that direction. These directions span a "metacognitive space" with dimensionality much lower than the model's neural space, suggesting LLMs can monitor only a small subset of their neural activations. Our paradigm provides empirical evidence to quantify metacognition in LLMs, with significant implications for AI safety (e.g., adversarial attack and defense).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making contexts, but when they present answers without signaling low confidence, users may unknowingly act on erroneous outputs. Prior work shows that LLMs maintain internal uncertainty signals, yet their expressed confidence is often miscalibrated and poorly discriminates between correct and incorrect answers. We investigate whether supervised fine-tuning can improve models' ability to communicate uncertainty and whether such improvements generalize across tasks and domains. We fine-tune LLMs on datasets spanning general knowledge, mathematics, and open-ended trivia, and evaluate two metacognitive tasks: (1) single-question confidence estimation, where the model assigns a numeric certainty to its answer, and (2) pairwise confidence comparison, where the model selects which of two answers it is more likely to answer correctly. We assess generalization to unseen domains, including medical and legal reasoning. Results show that fine-tuning improves calibration (alignment between stated confidence and accuracy) and discrimination (higher confidence for correct vs. incorrect responses) within and across domains. However, gains are task-specific: training on single-question calibration does not transfer to pairwise comparison, and vice versa. Multitask fine-tuning yields broader gains, lowering calibration error and strengthening discrimination in out-of-domain evaluations. This suggests that uncertainty communication in LLMs is trainable but requires multitask training to generalize effectively.

The inherent non-deterministic nature of autonomous agents, particularly within low-code/no-code (LCNC) environments, presents significant reliability challenges. Agents can become trapped in unforeseen loops, generate inaccurate outputs, or encounter unrecoverable failures, leading to user frustration and a breakdown of trust. This report proposes a novel architectural pattern to address these issues: the integration of a secondary, "metacognitive" layer that actively monitors the primary LCNC agent. Inspired by human introspection, this layer is designed to predict impending task failures based on a defined set of triggers, such as excessive latency or repetitive actions. Upon predicting a failure, the metacognitive agent proactively initiates a human handoff, providing the user with a clear summary of the agent's "thought process" and a detailed explanation of why it could not proceed. An empirical analysis of a prototype system demonstrates that this approach significantly increases the overall task success rate. However, this performance gain comes with a notable increase in computational overhead. The findings reframe human handoffs not as an admission of defeat but as a core design feature that enhances system resilience, improves user experience, and builds trust by providing transparency into the agent's internal state. The report discusses the practical and ethical implications of this approach and identifies key directions for future research.

This paper introduces MeLA, a Metacognitive LLM-Driven Architecture that presents a new paradigm for Automatic Heuristic Design (AHD). Traditional evolutionary methods operate directly on heuristic code; in contrast, MeLA evolves the instructional prompts used to guide a Large Language Model (LLM) in generating these heuristics. This process of "prompt evolution" is driven by a novel metacognitive framework where the system analyzes performance feedback to systematically refine its generative strategy. MeLA's architecture integrates a problem analyzer to construct an initial strategic prompt, an error diagnosis system to repair faulty code, and a metacognitive search engine that iteratively optimizes the prompt based on heuristic effectiveness. In comprehensive experiments across both benchmark and real-world problems, MeLA consistently generates more effective and robust heuristics, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art methods. Ultimately, this research demonstrates the profound potential of using cognitive science as a blueprint for AI architecture, revealing that by enabling an LLM to metacogni-tively regulate its problem-solving process, we unlock a more robust and interpretable path to AHD.

Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities on complex tasks, exhibiting emergent, human-like thinking patterns. Despite their advances, we identify a fundamental limitation: current LRMs lack a dedicated meta-level cognitive system-an essential faculty in human cognition that enables "thinking about thinking". This absence leaves their emergent abilities uncontrollable (non-adaptive reasoning), unreliable (intermediate error), and inflexible (lack of a clear methodology). To address this gap, we introduce Meta-R1, a systematic and generic framework that endows LRMs with explicit metacognitive capabilities. Drawing on principles from cognitive science, Meta-R1 decomposes the reasoning process into distinct object-level and meta-level components, orchestrating proactive planning, online regulation, and adaptive early stopping within a cascaded framework. Experiments on three challenging benchmarks and against eight competitive baselines demonstrate that Meta-R1 is: (I) high-performing, surpassing state-of-the-art methods by up to 27.3%; (II) token-efficient, reducing token consumption to 15.7% ~ 32.7% and improving efficiency by up to 14.8% when compared to its vanilla counterparts; and (III) transferable, maintaining robust performance across datasets and model backbones.

Understanding clients' thoughts and beliefs is fundamental in counseling, yet current evaluations of LLM therapists often fail to assess this ability. Existing evaluation methods rely on client simulators that clearly disclose internal states to the therapist, making it difficult to determine whether an LLM therapist can uncover unexpressed perspectives. To address this limitation, we introduce MindVoyager, a novel evaluation framework featuring a controllable and realistic client simulator which dynamically adapts itself based on the ongoing counseling session, offering a more realistic and challenging evaluation environment. We further introduce evaluation metrics that assess the exploration ability of LLM therapists by measuring their thorough understanding of client's beliefs and thoughts.