arXiv:2607. 20444v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can produce deceptive responses: outputs that mislead users in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal.
By Ali Asad, Stephen Obadinma, Anshul Pattoo, Wenxuan Zhang, Xiaodan Zhu
arXiv:2607. 20479v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training probes to detect deceptive outputs from large language models is still an open problem.
By Amr Moustafa, Max Feser, Florian Mai
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.
By Riccardo Loconte, Jonas Festor, Zane Fatjanova, Mariam Bolkvadze, Bennett Kleinberg
The paper presents a white‑box deception detection system that uses probes trained on the largest deception dataset (FIBS) and a novel architecture aggregating across layers and tokens. The probes achieve 98.8% AUC on SHADE‑Arena, outperforming a text‑monitoring baseline, and reach up to 99.7% AUC when detecting introspective deception that cannot be inferred from context alone. They also effectively detect deception in open‑weight models on politically sensitive topics and when models are pressured about their beliefs.
By Oskar J. Hollinsworth, Alex F. Spies, Tigist Diriba, Adam Gleave, Chris Cundy
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...
By Yiming Xu, Hongyue Yu, Beihua Yang, Zihan Chen, Yixin Liu, Zhen Peng, Bin Shi, Bo Dong, Chao Shen, Irwin King, Qinghua Zheng
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.