mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Caught in the Act: a mechanistic approach to detecting deception

arXiv 2508.19505 ↗First posted 27 Aug 2025cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Sophisticated instrumentation for AI systems might have indicators that signal misalignment from human values, not unlike a "check engine" light in cars. One such indicator of misalignment is deceptiveness in generated responses. Future AI instrumentation may have the ability to detect when an LLM generates deceptive responses while reasoning about seemingly plausible but incorrect answers to factual questions. In this work, we demonstrate that linear probes on LLMs internal activations can detect deception in their responses with extremely high accuracy. Our probes reach a maximum of greater than 90% accuracy in distinguishing between deceptive and non-deceptive arguments generated by llama and qwen models ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters, including their DeepSeek-r1 finetuned variants. We observe that probes on smaller models (1.5B) achieve chance accuracy at detecting deception, while larger models (greater than 7B) reach 70-80%, with their reasoning counterparts exceeding 90%. The layer-wise probe accuracy follows a three-stage pattern across layers: near-random (50%) in early layers, peaking in middle layers, and slightly declining in later layers. Furthermore, using an iterative null space projection approach, we find multitudes of linear directions that encode deception, ranging from 20 in Qwen 3B to nearly 100 in DeepSeek 7B and Qwen 14B models.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Aug 2025.

Builds on

9 of 18 references.

References · 9

  1. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  2. 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
  3. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
  4. 2023Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedbackcited by 353
  5. 2023An Overview of Catastrophic AI Riskscited by 222
  6. 2023Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Modelscited by 101
  7. 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
  8. 2023Analyzing Chain-of-Thought Prompting in Large Language Models via Gradient-based Feature Attributionscited by 32
  9. 2023The System Model and the User Model: Exploring AI Dashboard Designcited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026One Probe Won't Catch Them All: Towards Targeted Deception Detection
  2. 2025When Thinking LLMs Lie: Unveiling the Strategic Deception in Representations of Reasoning Models
  3. 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deception
  4. 2026Linear Probe Accuracy Scales with Model Size and Benefits from Multi-Layer Ensembling
  5. 2026Lying to Win: Assessing LLM Deception through Human-AI Games and Parallel-World Probing
  6. 2026DecepEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Deception in LLM Agents
  7. 2026Probe Generalization as Subspace Selection for OOD Deception Detection
  8. 2026Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditing