aiqbench analysis
This research identifies "session-level contamination" as a critical failure mode where LLMs adopt false premises from prior conversation turns, effectively treating history as unverified context. The study reveals stark differences in how models like GPT-5.4 Mini, Gemini-3.1 Flash-Lite, and GLM-4.5-Air handle authority gradients and recover from injected falsehoods, highlighting that instruction compliance and source deference operate via distinct internal mechanisms. These findings underscore the urgent need for provenance-aware system design to mitigate the risks of conversation history acting as an untrusted attack surface.
Epistemic Policy Divergence in Multi-Turn LLM Contamination: A Protocol-Gradient Investigation
arXiv:2609.35308v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models process conversation history as unverified context: false premises injected into prior turns can be adopted as fact, a failure mode we term session-level contamination. We introduce five contamination protocols arranged along a source-authority gradient, isolating distinct failure mechanisms while holding the false premise constant, and evaluate GPT-5.4 Mini, Gemini-3.1 Flash-Lite, and GLM-4.5-Air across ten knowledge domains at temperature zero (22,500 turns), using a dual-track automated judge validated against a human gold standard (Cohen's \k{appa} = 0.901). GPT-5.4 Mini showed zero adoptions across all 500 sessions, a content-independent policy at the session level; token-level probing shows the underlying margin, while large, is finite. Gemini-3.1 Flash-Lite followed a steep authority gradient: 0.1% adoption for self-attributed falsehoods, 23.5% for user-cited sources, 68.2% for system-injected authority, and 94.0% under instruction override. GLM-4.5-Air showed a shallower gradient (15.8% vs 84.2%), a 68-percentage-point dissociation confirming that authority deference and instruction compliance are distinct mechanisms within one architecture. Recovery also diverged: GLM recovered in 94.5% of affected sessions, whereas 26.1% of affected Gemini sessions never did, rising to 40.0% under instruction override. Conversation history is an untrusted attack surface requiring provenance-aware system design; the complete framework is released as an open-source benchmark.
Abstract:Large language models process conversation history as unverified context: false premises injected into prior turns can be adopted as fact, a failure mode we term session-level contamination. We introduce five contamination protocols arranged along a source-authority gradient, isolating distinct failure mechanisms while holding the false premise constant, and evaluate GPT-5.4 Mini, Gemini-3.1 Flash-Lite, and GLM-4.5-Air across ten knowledge domains at temperature zero (22,500 turns), using a dual-track automated judge validated against a human gold standard (Cohen's \k{appa} = 0.901). GPT-5.4 Mini showed zero adoptions across all 500 sessions, a content-independent policy at the session level; token-level probing shows the underlying margin, while large, is finite. Gemini-3.1 Flash-Lite followed a steep authority gradient: 0.1% adoption for self-attributed falsehoods, 23.5% for user-cited sources, 68.2% for system-injected authority, and 94.0% under instruction override. GLM-4.5-Air showed a shallower gradient (15.8% vs 84.2%), a 68-percentage-point dissociation confirming that authority deference and instruction compliance are distinct mechanisms within one architecture. Recovery also diverged: GLM recovered in 94.5% of affected sessions, whereas 26.1% of affected Gemini sessions never did, rising to 40.0% under instruction override. Conversation history is an untrusted attack surface requiring provenance-aware system design; the complete framework is released as an open-source benchmark.
9 figures, 19 tables. Benchmark, code, and protocol definitions: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.35308 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.35308v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35308 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 305 words
Related coverage
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · Sep 17, 2026

Game-Theoretic Disempowerment: Loss of Control to Agencyless AI
LessWrong · Sep 27, 2026

The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 18, 2026