AINov 6, 2025
Monitor-Generate-Verify (MGV): Formalising Metacognitive Theory for Language Model ReasoningNick Oh, Fernand Gobet
Test-time reasoning architectures such as those following the Generate-Verify paradigm -- where a model iteratively refines or verifies its own generated outputs -- prioritise generation and verification but exclude the monitoring processes that determine when and how reasoning should begin. This omission may contribute to the prefix dominance trap, in which models commit early to suboptimal reasoning paths and seldom recover, yielding roughly 20% accuracy loss. We address this architectural gap by formalising Flavell's and Nelson and Narens' metacognitive theories into computational specifications, proposing the Monitor-Generate-Verify (MGV) framework. MGV extends the Generate-Verify paradigm by adding explicit monitoring that captures metacognitive experiences (from difficulty assessments to confidence judgements) before generation begins and refines future monitoring through verification feedback. Though we present no empirical validation, this work provides the first systematic computational translation of foundational metacognitive theories, offering a principled vocabulary for understanding reasoning system failures and suggesting specific architectural interventions for future test-time reasoning designs.
AIOct 18, 2025
Before you <think>, monitor: Implementing Flavell's metacognitive framework in LLMsNick Oh
Current approaches to enhancing LLM reasoning follows two isolated paradigms: Monitor-Generate methods like Plan-and-Solve (Wang et al., 2023) and SELF-DISCOVER (Zhou et al., 2024) excel at strategic planning but lack mechanisms to verify whether selected strategies succeed; while Generate-Verify approaches like Self-Verification (Weng et al., 2022) and SELF-REFINE (Madaan et al., 2023) iteratively refine outputs but commence generation blindly without task assessment. This separation creates inefficiencies -- strategies fail without feedback, and refinement occurs without strategic grounding. We address this gap by implementing Flavell's cognitive monitoring model (1979) from the broader Monitor-Generate-Verify framework (Oh and Gobet, 2025), operationalising it as a three-phase iterative system. On GSM8K, preliminary results show 75.42% accuracy versus 68.44% for SELF-REFINE and 67.07% for Self-Verification, while requiring fewer attempts (1.3 vs 2.0) at 27-37% increased inference cost. These initial findings suggest upfront monitoring produces higher-quality initial solutions that reduce refinement needs, though evaluation beyond arithmetic reasoning is needed to establish generalisability.
MMAug 12, 2025
PETLP: A Privacy-by-Design Pipeline for Social Media Data in AI ResearchNick Oh, Giorgos D. Vrakas, Siân J. M. Brooke et al.
Social media data presents AI researchers with overlapping obligations under the GDPR, copyright law, and platform terms -- yet existing frameworks fail to integrate these regulatory domains, leaving researchers without unified guidance. We introduce PETLP (Privacy-by-design Extract, Transform, Load, and Present), a compliance framework that embeds legal safeguards directly into extended ETL pipelines. Central to PETLP is treating Data Protection Impact Assessments as living documents that evolve from pre-registration through dissemination. Through systematic Reddit analysis, we demonstrate how extraction rights fundamentally differ between qualifying research organisations (who can invoke DSM Article 3 to override platform restrictions) and commercial entities (bound by terms of service), whilst GDPR obligations apply universally. We demonstrate why true anonymisation remains unachievable for social media data and expose the legal gap between permitted dataset creation and uncertain model distribution. By structuring compliance decisions into practical workflows and simplifying institutional data management plans, PETLP enables researchers to navigate regulatory complexity with confidence, bridging the gap between legal requirements and research practice.
LGDec 23, 2024
In Defence of Post-hoc ExplainabilityNick Oh
This position paper defends post-hoc explainability methods as legitimate tools for scientific knowledge production in machine learning. Addressing criticism of these methods' reliability and epistemic status, we develop a philosophical framework grounded in mediated understanding and bounded factivity. We argue that scientific insights can emerge through structured interpretation of model behaviour without requiring complete mechanistic transparency, provided explanations acknowledge their approximative nature and undergo rigorous empirical validation. Through analysis of recent biomedical ML applications, we demonstrate how post-hoc methods, when properly integrated into scientific practice, generate novel hypotheses and advance phenomenal understanding.