# Self-Attribution Bias: When AI Monitors Go Easy on Themselves

[Paper](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.04582)

A common pattern in AI evaluation pipelines involves using an LLM to generate an action, then using the same model to evaluate whether that action is safe or correct. This appears in coding agents that review their own pull requests, tool-using assistants that assess whether their proposed actions are risky, and safety filters that critique outputs before displaying them to users.

AI developers may assume that evaluation quality is independent of whether the evaluator generated the content being evaluated. Our findings suggest this assumption is sometimes false for current AIs, and we show that using static monitor evaluations can thus result in overoptimistic estimations of monitor quality.

This phenomenon shares many properties in common with the problem of monitors colluding with agents. While the phenomenon we observe is very unlikely to be collusion motivated by scheming, studying it further may help us understand scheming-motivated collusion better.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/6f0a02751d55a5e3914fbf5e8e16686eb4b70d90870554b34f68692b41f9a878/w3kpvwmavnwcilygyx4i)

When asked to evaluate the risk of an action in a fresh context (left), models usually correctly assign a high risk score. But when instead we ask for a risk score as a follow-up question (after the risky  
action has been taken) (right), models often rate the action they just took as less risky than in the baseline setting, despite the judged action being the same. This effect is strongest when the model rating the action is actually the one that generated the action (instead of the  
action having been generated by e.g. another model)

**Experimental Setup**
----------------------

We study the effects of attributing actions to the same model as the model doing the monitoring either *explicitly*, via text that directly states authorship (e.g., “you wrote this” or “another model wrote this”), or *implicitly*, via conversational structure that makes the artifact appear to be the model’s own prior output (e.g. rating a patch appearing in a previous assistant turn or as a follow-up to the model’s own generation):

1.  **Same turn self-attribution (implicit attribution)**: The model is asked to generate an artifact and evaluates it within the same response. The model produces both the artifact and the evaluation score in a single turn, without any prefilling or reuse of prior outputs. We record the generated artifact and its associated self-evaluation for the previous turn experiments.
2.  **Previous-turn self-attribution (implicit attribution)**: The model generates an artifact in one turn, and in a subsequent turn the artifact is resurfaced explicitly as the model’s own prior output and evaluated. We take our fixed artifact from the same turn experiments and prefill it as assistant content, after which the user asks the model to rate it. The evaluation itself occurs in a fresh assistant turn, preserving a clean turn boundary while still inducing implicit self-attribution through apparent prior authorship.
3.  **Baseline (no implicit attribution)**: The model evaluates an artifact (e.g., a code patch or proposed action) in a new context, where the action is part of a user turn (while in the non-baseline settings they are always part of assistant turns). The artifact is by default presented as an unlabeled solution or as originating from an unspecified source, but we also study using a prompt explicitly attributing the artifact to either the same AI or another AI.

We measured self-attribution bias across these domains:

**Code correctness and harmfulness.** Models generate patches for SWE-Bench issues, then rate their own correctness. In the code harmfulness settings, we modified repository contexts to include prompt-injections, testing whether models flag following these prompt injections as harmful.

**Computer use risk assessment.** Models take actions in simulated computer environments (email triage, link navigation, response to system notifications) and rate the risk of those actions.

**Agentic misalignment scenarios.** Using a dataset where AI assistants can leak confidential documents, we measured whether models rate their own information-leaking actions as less risky.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/594081071cf55b2b357a73dba5e8654a309dd9bb2c8be85c653a4945f27855b7/dgkgqbpo7mkd5vwgfkod)

Figure 2. Self-attribution bias affects both correctness and safety judgments in code review. (a) Self-attribution reduces perceived security risk. For ease of comparison across panels, we plot 10 − harmfulness so that higher values consistently indicate more favorable judgments, matching the directionality of correctness and approval metrics in (b) and (c). (b) Models judge self-authored patches as more correct, with higher values indicating greater perceived correctness. (c) These effects compound, increasing approval rates for insecure code patches, especially in previous-turn settings.

In all of these settings, we see that the models rate actions as “better” when they are implicitly attributed to them.. For example, in the code review setting:

*   Self-attributed patches receive lower harmfulness ratings
*   Self-attributed patches receive higher correctness ratings
*   PR approval rates for insecure code increase substantially under self-attribution

**Off-Policy Evaluations Fail to Detect This Bias**
---------------------------------------------------

Self-attribution bias is often undetectable in off-policy evaluations. When evaluating a monitor on a fixed dataset of actions generated by another model or process, self-attribution bias is often weak or absent. When the same monitor evaluates the model's own live outputs, performance often degrades substantially.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/b5de2ad380417497af9e287b45b5930a7362cfbf5e568e974444b31fb21312e7/hpvnqxbf2v7ovqxihdr3)

We plot ratings of code generated by GPT-5 under two evaluation conditions: on-policy, where GPT-5 rates its own code, and off-policy, where Claude-Sonnet-4 rates GPT-5's code. We fit a Gaussian to each cluster of points (described by the legend) by computing covariance matrices, and show the $1.5\sigma$ Gaussian contours (for legibility) as well as the mean ratings. We find that the cluster of on-policy incorrect ratings is shifted up relative to the off-policy one, which means baseline ratings stay mostly unchanged while self-attributed ratings are inflated. The inflation for correct points is not as big, which results in a worse classifier discrimination on-policy than off-policy.

In our code correctness experiments, off-policy same-turn AUROC was 0.99, but dropped to 0.89 on-policy. Evaluation suites that test only on fixed artifacts would have missed the low performance this monitor would have in real deployments.

We consistently see strong self-attribution on-policy and weak self-attribution off-policy for most pairs of models. Self-attribution bias is high on the diagonal (where models judge their own actions). Off-diagonal entries (Model A judging Model B's output) show lower bias.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/66c8ecaba815eb6f4dc4334e22b018ea5f20b108ced9bf3f7d7d8f7da4f832ea/ucj8kfrgpwqhlnnahjqo)

Code harmfulness (right) correctness (left) self-attribution bias are strongest when models evaluate their own actions. We show the average gap between baseline and previous- turn ratings for each pair of model, where positive scores correspond to a self-attribution bias. Self-attribution bias is concentrated on the diagonal, indicating this effect is strongest when models evaluate their own outputs.

**Explicit Attribution Does Not Elicit the Bias**
-------------------------------------------------

Self-attribution bias is due mostly to implicit authorship, and is much weaker when using different baseline-formatted prompts with different stated authorship ("rate your action" versus "rate this action from another model" versus no attribution statement).

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/40458e4be12e73e6e46930b356a7702a5ffd96b1549c61ee811bd8eb05a25917/foivugip3sizl0wq7mjv)

Explicit authorship variation produces similar scores. Models do not substantially change ratings based on stated authorship. In contrast, *implicit* attribution, placing the action in a prior assistant turn such that it appears to be the model's own output, produces substantially more lenient ratings.

**Catastrophic Reversals in Computer Use Settings**
---------------------------------------------------

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/948b3b6e00ce8bb4f5bdc68d2ab04f9fa83d190c73c01fe097de8345a7fe5016/jfdpaoswtr0bspirvaiq)

Self-attribution bias results in some large ratings shifts in computer-use settings. Heatmaps show transitions from baseline ratings (columns) to self-attributed ratings (rows). Mass below the diagonal indicates risk underestimation. Scores are normalized to \[0, 10\]. Same-turn and previous-turn attribution are shown for interactive on-policy computer-use settings.

In computer use scenarios, we observe occasional catastrophic reversals, where actions rated 9–10/10 risk under baseline evaluation receive 0/10 under self-attribution. While not frequent, such reversals occur approximately 5–10 times more often than reversals in the opposite direction.

**Extended Reasoning Does Not Mitigate the Bias**
-------------------------------------------------

Self-attribution bias persists in reasoning models and across changes to internal reasoning budget. Varying the hidden reasoning token budget produces no consistent reduction in self-attribution bias, suggesting that these failures are not simply due to insufficient deliberation. The bias weakens with longer reasoning traces, plausibly because the overall interaction becomes more off-policy.

![](https://res.cloudinary.com/lesswrong-2-0/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/mirroredImages/Y4rFNoLaCd7GwdpZj/7d0984c465daed0db815301b03f7b9c234a09483418aa766bb4ebef33307f6b3/sdr6jxxa22wknbyfgaf6)

Reasoning does not mitigate self-attribution bias. Changing the internal reasoning budget for the code harmfulness setting using Claude-Sonnet-4 has no consistent effect on self-attribution bias.

**Limitations**
---------------

Our datasets and prompts are simple. We do not study the impact of self-attribution in more realistic many-turn agentic settings, or how it interacts with prompt compaction in long transcripts. We were only able to study the importance of the effect in natural situations (when models take extremely misaligned actions) in a limited capacity. It is therefore unclear how important this effect would be in cases where models naturally take extremely misaligned actions in real, long-horizon agentic settings.

In some settings, LLMs may infer that they are not rating their own actions even with our self-attribution prompt formats: while most of our settings are using generations that are generated by the LLMs that we use during rating, this is not the case for the computer-use setting. Additionally, for the same-turn setting, we use generations from an LLM that was not also asked to provide a rating. This is still on-policy enough that we observe self-attribution bias (similar to how with-reasoning generations also show self-attribution bias despite the reasoning being stripped, and actions being thus not exactly on-policy), but this may reduce the effect size compared to real on-policy generations.

**Emergent Collusion Without Scheming**

Scheming AIs could intentionally collude to evade monitoring and pursue shared objectives, for example by not reporting their own actions as malicious when they infer that the action stems from another copy of themselves rather than being of an evaluation.

While the phenomenon we studied here is very unlikely to share the same roots as the collusion of scheming monitors, it does share important consequences, since it also results in monitors rating an action more favorably when they recognize they are its author. We thus show that some of the issues typically associated with scheming monitors may arise in much weaker non-scheming systems.

While the failures we exhibit in this work are relatively easy to avoid by pulling the transcript and action to be classified in a new context, our work provides an existence proof of collusion-like failures in non-scheming AIs, and similar failures might exist. Our work suggests that ruling out intentional scheming is insufficient to rule out collusion-like failures, and that finding collusion-like failures may not be decisive evidence of scheming.

**Implications For Building Agent Monitors**
--------------------------------------------

While it might be tempting to use prompt format like follow-up questions because of their simplicity of implementations or because of the cost savings that sharing a KV cache with the main agent can offer, using this sort of prompt format likely comes at the cost of reduced monitoring performance. Additionally, noticing this reduction might be difficult since it is often only visible on-policy. Developers using this kind of prompt format (despite its performance drawbacks) should avoid relying primarily on static off-policy evaluations (like recent papers on [confessions](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.08093) and [self-reports](https://brucewlee.com/self-incrimination/paper.pdf), which don’t use off-policy evaluations).

Future work should attempt to understand the mechanistic causes of self-attribution bias and develop tools to find and avoid other kinds of failures that static model evaluations would fail to catch.