mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Spilling the Beans: Teaching LLMs to Self-Report Their Hidden Objectives

arXiv 2511.06626 ↗First posted 10 Nov 2025cs.AIcited by 15

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

As AI systems become more capable of complex agentic tasks, they also become more capable of pursuing undesirable objectives and causing harm. Previous work has attempted to catch these unsafe instances by interrogating models directly about their objectives and behaviors. However, the main weakness of trusting interrogations is that models can lie. We propose self-report fine-tuning (SRFT), a simple supervised fine-tuning technique that trains models to occasionally make factual mistakes, then admit them when asked. We show that the admission of factual errors in simple question-answering settings generalizes out-of-distribution (OOD) to the admission of hidden misaligned objectives in adversarial agentic settings. We evaluate SRFT in OOD stealth tasks, where models are instructed to complete a hidden misaligned objective alongside a user-specified objective without being caught by monitoring. After SRFT, models are more likely to confess the details of their hidden objectives when interrogated, even under strong pressure not to disclose them. Interrogation on SRFT models can detect hidden objectives with near-ceiling performance (F1 score = 0.98), while the baseline model lies when interrogated under the same conditions (F1 score = 0). Interrogation on SRFT models can further elicit the content of the hidden objective, recovering 28-100% details, compared to 0% details recovered in the baseline model and by prefilled assistant turn attacks. This provides a promising technique for promoting honesty propensity and incriminating misaligned AIs.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 31 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Nov 2025.

Builds on

31 of 37 references.

References · 31

  1. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  2. 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
  3. 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
  4. 2023Fine-tuning Aligned Language Models Compromises Safety, Even When Users Do Not Intend To!cited by 1,154
  5. 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,085
  6. 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
  7. 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
  8. 2024Jailbreaking Leading Safety-Aligned LLMs with Simple Adaptive Attackscited by 486
  9. 2024Safety Alignment Should Be Made More Than Just a Few Tokens Deepcited by 472
  10. 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 345
  11. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 287
  12. 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 229
19 more
  1. 2025Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMscited by 172
  2. 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 158
  3. 2024Analyzing the Generalization and Reliability of Steering Vectorscited by 143
  4. 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 128
  5. 2024What is in Your Safe Data? Identifying Benign Data that Breaks Safetycited by 118
  6. 2024Looking Inward: Language Models Can Learn About Themselves by Introspectioncited by 113
  7. 2025Tell me about yourself: LLMs are aware of their learned behaviorscited by 91
  8. 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 79
  9. 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
  10. 2023Bypassing the Safety Training of Open-Source LLMs with Priming Attackscited by 50
  11. 2024Obfuscated Activations Bypass LLM Latent-Space Defensescited by 45
  12. 2025Inoculation Prompting: Instructing LLMs to misbehave at train-time improves test-time alignmentcited by 43
  13. 2025Steering Out-of-Distribution Generalization with Concept Ablation Fine-Tuningcited by 39
  14. 2024Uncovering Deceptive Tendencies in Language Models: A Simulated Company AI Assistantcited by 38
  15. 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 37
  16. 2024Towards Reliable Evaluation of Behavior Steering Interventions in LLMscited by 36
  17. 2025Teaching Models to Verbalize Reward Hacking in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 21
  18. 2024Comparing Bottom-Up and Top-Down Steering Approaches on In-Context Learning Taskscited by 14
  19. 2025Discovering Forbidden Topics in Language Modelscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 14.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area:

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Caught in the Act: a mechanistic approach to detecting deception
  2. 2025Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts
  3. 2026Lying to Win: Assessing LLM Deception through Human-AI Games and Parallel-World Probing
  4. 2025Among Us: A Sandbox for Measuring and Detecting Agentic Deception
  5. 2025Deception in LLMs: Self-Preservation and Autonomous Goals in Large Language Models
  6. 2026Proxy Confidence: Auditing Black-Box LLM Agents with a Surrogate's Log-Probabilities
  7. 2026DecepEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Deception in LLM Agents
  8. 2026Unlearning Deceptive Behaviors in LLMs with Contrastive Forget Sets