mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Effective faking of verbal deception detection with target-aligned adversarial attacks

arXiv 2501.05962 ↗First posted 10 Jan 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Deception detection through analysing language is a promising avenue using both human judgments and automated machine learning judgments. For both forms of credibility assessment, automated adversarial attacks that rewrite deceptive statements to appear truthful pose a serious threat. Methods: We used a dataset of 243 truthful and 262 fabricated autobiographical stories in a deception detection task for humans and machine learning models. A large language model was tasked to rewrite deceptive statements so that they appear truthful. In Study 1, humans who made a deception judgment or used the detailedness heuristic and two machine learning models (a fine-tuned language model and a simple n-gram model) judged original or adversarial modifications of deceptive statements. In Study 2, we manipulated the target alignment of the modifications, i.e. tailoring the attack to whether the statements would be assessed by humans or computer models. Results: When adversarial modifications were aligned with their target, human (d=-0.07 and d=-0.04) and machine judgments (51% accuracy) dropped to the chance level. When the attack was not aligned with the target, both human heuristics judgments (d=0.30 and d=0.36) and machine learning predictions (63-78%) were significantly better than chance. Conclusions: Easily accessible language models can effectively help anyone fake deception detection efforts both by humans and machine learning models. Robustness against adversarial modifications for humans and machines depends on that target alignment. We close with suggestions on advancing deception research with adversarial attack designs and techniques.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jan 2025.

Builds on

12 of 70 references.

References · 12

  1. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,474
  2. 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
  3. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 424
  4. 2020Beat the AI: Investigating Adversarial Human Annotation for Reading Comprehensioncited by 131
  5. 2016Crafting Adversarial Input Sequences for Recurrent Neural Networkscited by 103
  6. 2020Reevaluating Adversarial Examples in Natural Languagecited by 85
  7. 2021Towards Improving Adversarial Training of NLP Modelscited by 79
  8. 2018Adversarial Examples that Fool both Computer Vision and Time-Limited Humanscited by 73
  9. 2020Frequency-Guided Word Substitutions for Detecting Textual Adversarial Examplescited by 54
  10. 2021Contrasting Human- and Machine-Generated Word-Level Adversarial Examples for Text Classificationcited by 3
  11. 2024Cognitive phantoms in LLMs through the lens of latent variablescited by 3
  12. 2022Identifying Human Strategies for Generating Word-Level Adversarial Examplescited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Can Deception Detection Go Deeper? Dataset, Evaluation, and Benchmark for Deception Reasoning
  2. 2025Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings
  3. 2025D-REX: A Benchmark for Detecting Deceptive Reasoning in Large Language Models
  4. 2026Beyond Liars' Bench: The Impact of Lie Typology, Depth, and Sparsity on Deception Detection in LLMs
  5. 2025Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL
  6. 2025The Coherence Trap: When MLLM-Crafted Narratives Exploit Manipulated Visual Contexts
  7. 2025Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts
  8. 2026Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditing