Should I Trust You? Detecting Deception in Negotiations using Counterfactual RL
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
An increasingly common socio-technical problem is people being taken in by offers that sound ``too good to be true'', where persuasion and trust shape decision-making. This paper investigates how abrai can help detect these deceptive scenarios. We analyze how humans strategically deceive each other in textitDiplomacy, a board game that requires both natural language communication and strategic reasoning. This requires extracting logical forms of proposed agreements in player communications and computing the relative rewards of the proposal using agents' value functions. Combined with text-based features, this can improve our deception detection. Our method detects human deception with a high precision when compared to a Large Language Model approach that flags many true messages as deceptive. Future human-abrai interaction tools can build on our methods for deception detection by triggering textitfriction to give users a chance of interrogating suspicious proposals.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 69 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Feb 2025.
Builds on
23 of 69 references.
References · 23
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 1,026
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
- 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 513
- 2020A Survey of the State of Explainable AI for Natural Language Processingcited by 206
- 2024Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHFcited by 124
- 2018Deep Counterfactual Regret Minimizationcited by 103
- 2020"Why is 'Chicago' deceptive?" Towards Building Model-Driven Tutorials for Humanscited by 86
- 2022Mastering the Game of No-Press Diplomacy via Human-Regularized Reinforcement Learning and Planningcited by 48
- 2023Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checkscited by 47
11 more
- 2019Finding Friend and Foe in Multi-Agent Gamescited by 42
- 2020Human-Level Performance in No-Press Diplomacy via Equilibrium Searchcited by 41
- 2019No Press Diplomacy: Modeling Multi-Agent Gameplaycited by 38
- 2021No-Press Diplomacy from Scratchcited by 31
- 2020Learning to Play No-Press Diplomacy with Best Response Policy Iterationcited by 26
- 2024Learning to Discuss Strategically: A Case Study on One Night Ultimate Werewolfcited by 24
- 2015Linguistic Harbingers of Betrayal: A Case Study on an Online Strategy Gamecited by 16
- 2025Learning Strategic Language Agents in the Werewolf Game with Iterative Latent Space Policy Optimizationcited by 15
- 2024More Victories, Less Cooperation: Assessing Cicero's Diplomacy Playcited by 9
- 2023To Tell The Truth: Language of Deception and Language Modelscited by 6
- 2024Personalized Help for Optimizing Low-Skilled Users' Strategycited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
3 papers.