Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the concept of reality monitoring in large language models (LLMs) by examining how these models attribute the source of their outputs during conversations. The researchers conducted two experiments with six different LLMs, revealing that the models' ability to accurately distinguish between self-generated content and user input is highly dependent on the structure of conversational memory. Notably, while models perform well under minimal memory demands, their accuracy deteriorates when episodic delays are introduced, highlighting critical failures in source attribution that could lead to hallucinations and misinformation.
LLMs can confuse their own outputs with user inputs, leading to significant errors in source attribution that could jeopardize their reliability in multi-turn conversations.
A conversational AI that cannot tell its own output from what a user said will treat its own mistakes as user-provided facts. In humans, this capacity is called reality monitoring, and its failures are linked to hallucinations, delusions, and confabulation, yet whether LLMs possess it remains untested. Here we show, across two experiments and six LLMs, that source attribution depends on how conversational memory is structured: ceiling accuracy for self-generated content under minimal memory demands reverses to a fragile external-item advantage once episodic delay removes that shortcut. Feedback exposes two failures: in some models, internal and external judgments swap; in others, accuracy improves while confidence decouples from correctness, dissociations invisible to existing benchmarks. Across models, this pattern implicates active, not aggregate, parameter count. This suggests that as AI systems take on autonomous, multi-turn roles, evaluating what they know is not enough: tracking where that knowledge came from may matter equally.