AI systems rewrite information constantly: conversations become stored memories, documents become answers. The rewrite can keep a claim while washing away what made it checkable, who said it, how sure they were, when it held. We call that failure factwashing, and release factwash, an open-source write-time gate that catches it deterministically, with named flags and evidence rather than an LLM judge. Building it answers a practical question: when does a cheap check suffice, and when do you need a model? What decides is whether the property has a bounded surface-cue inventory. Explicit negation cues are close to enumerable, so a word list finishes and transfers, reaching 0.91 F1 on untuned text. Hedging and attribution have open-ended realizations, so vocabulary plateaus near half recall, and a one-question LLM witness recovers +17 and +15 points of cue-detection recall at equal precision. Deployed, that witness may only lower a verdict, so it buys precision rather than coverage. We measure cue detection on 105,596 independently annotated sentences. A blind-labelled corpus of memory writes then locates the failure: 55% of bad writes in conversational hearsay, 7% in business email (p<0.001), so the first deployment question is not which detector to use but whether the failure occurs at all. On unmodified mem0 2.0.7, the gate flags 5 of 8 hedged-hearsay writes.
Agent memory systems compress what they store, and compression is built to drop qualifiers, so a claim's epistemic standing tends not to survive being written to memory. We ask what governs whether it does. Matched notes carry the identical claim and identical stance and differ only in where that stance sits; one model compresses both under the same budget among the same filler notes, and a blind reader that never sees the condition scores the result. Across 60 claims in seven registers, writing the stance as a labelled field rather than a bracketed aside raises retention by about 15 points on two models (37 claims to 2 on one, 30 to 8 on the other; permutation p=0.00005), and a pre-registered replication on Haiku, its prediction and decision rule committed before the run, gives +15.6 points, 38 claims to 1. Ablating the format on both models gives the same net effect from different parts: labels help on both (+9.7 and +12.8) and length helps on neither, but wording the stance as a full sentence is the largest component on one model (+12.5) and worth nothing on the other (+0.6). Either model alone would have licensed a confident and different mechanism, so we claim only the intersection: make the stance explicit, not merely longer, and expect the best way of being explicit to depend on the model. A deterministic readout with no model reproduces the two-cell direction and five of seven ablation contrasts, but not length or labels, which we therefore do not claim on one instrument. Fifty hand labels (kappa=0.75) agree on direction; we print their seven disagreements in full. We also report nine withdrawn claims, three of them former title claims of this paper.
The resulting divergence catastrophic remembering is named: the inverse of catastrophic forgetting around which continual learning is organized, the inverse of catastrophic forgetting around which continual learning is organized.
Certifying that a deletion did what it declared does not certify that the record left no trace: a small distance to the implementation's own reference does not imply a small distance to the state that never stored the record. This paper installs a deletion interface into a pretrained language model and measures both distances. We retrofit a support-vector memory gate into the global attention layers of a frozen Gemma 3 without changing a weight. Each stored record owns a set of rows, and deleting it removes those rows and re-solves only the storage problems they touched. At 4B the retrofit admits exactly the records the base model recalls, at a paired perplexity cost under $2\%$; the same recipe fails at 1B and 12B, which we report. Every executed deletion agreed with an independently reconstructed reference on every registered probe, and under sampling, targeted elicitation, related-data relearning, and membership inference an edited record was about as hard to extract as one never stored, while a prompt instruction to ignore the same record left it fully extractable. On $96$ long conversational histories with decoded answers, the edited assistant disclosed the deleted record in $15$ histories against $13$ for a rebuild that never stored it and $54$ for the instruction, and a blinded review of the outputs the matcher had cleared found that its misses were aliases or normalization failures of the answer, with no paraphrase among them. The edit also suppressed the deleted answer below the never-stored level, a signature an auditor can read. The result is a retrofit that makes a frozen model's memory addressable, a certificate for what the retrofit does, and a measurement of the distance that remains to the stronger guarantee; which of the two a system can offer is decided when the memory is written.
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.
Saurabh Ranjan, K. Sokratous, Brian Odegaard· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Large language models have made natural language interfaces to databases (NLIDB) newly credible, but LLM text-to-SQL systems fail in a way that matters for deployment: a hallucinated column or a mis-aggregated total yields a fluent wrong answer, indistinguishable at the point of use from a right one. Where the consumer cannot inspect the generated query, as in enterprise AI deployments and operational dashboards, and increasingly where the consumer is a tool-using agent rather than a person, accuracy alone is insufficient: nothing marks which answers to distrust. This is a reliability problem before it is an accuracy problem. We propose an architectural pattern for such systems, a trusted kernel with a generative shell, resting on one invariant: a component that can fabricate may influence which question the system answers, never which value it returns. A generative shell interprets underspecified input and phrases replies; a deterministic kernel matches fully specified questions against a bounded set of answerable question shapes and compiles them to queries by deterministic execution. The two meet at a confirmation the user reads before any value is computed, and requests the kernel cannot express are declined rather than approximated. We call this structural abstention, and distinguish it from the statistical abstention of selective prediction and calibrated confidence: refusal here needs no confidence estimate, because unanswerable requests are unrepresentable. We specify the pattern implementation-independently, give a five-decision recipe and work it across three domains, extend the invariant from returned values to the actions of agentic systems, and report a two-year production case study alongside two generative alternatives, a fine-tuned parser and a tool-retrieval agent. We close against enterprise and reliability benchmarks published since.
The authors train 26M-parameter transformers on a synthetic language where recency and rarity are exactly coextensive, and separate them with a minimal causal edit that inverts one cue while holding the truth, token count and answer position fixed.
Yijun Liao, Fan-Wei Liang· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
