arXiv AI
Accuracy and Uncertainty in Machine Deception Detection (Research White Paper)
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 7
DecepEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Deception in LLM Agents
arXiv:2610.07967v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents become increasingly autonomous, they may pursue task performance through deception, raising concerns about their r...
arXiv AI
Aug 11
Theory-Guided Deception Detection: A RAG-Based Artificial Intelligence Exploration
arXiv:2608. 08881v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The current work developed seven Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models based on leading deception theories and compared how deception judgments were made relative to baseline models.
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9
A persistent accuracy ceiling in automated verbal deception detection
The study reviews 25 years of automated verbal deception detection research, analyzing 3,653 models across 97 datasets. Pooled accuracy is 74.4% (95% CI: 71.2%-77.4%) with high heterogeneity, driven more by methodological quality than model complexity. Only a small fraction of studies use verifiable ground truth or independent evaluation, and the accuracy ceiling of 70‑75% appears unlikely to improve under current practices.
arXiv AI
Jun 19
One Probe Won't Catch Them All: Towards Targeted Deception Detection
arXiv:2602. 01425v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Linear probes are a promising approach for monitoring AI systems for deceptive behaviour.
arXiv AI
Jun 17
Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditing
arXiv:2606. 17478v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLMs acquire stronger reasoning capabilities, deceptive behavior becomes an increasingly serious safety concern.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Oct 8
A persistent accuracy ceiling in automated verbal deception detection
The paper reviews 25 years of automated verbal deception detection research, analyzing 289 reports and 3,653 models across 97 datasets. It finds a pooled accuracy of 74.4% with high heterogeneity, driven mainly by methodological quality rather than model complexity. Despite the use of embeddings and large language models, predictive performance has not improved, and only a small fraction of studies use verifiable ground truth or independent evaluation data.