mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Liars' Bench: Evaluating Lie Detectors for Language Models

arXiv 2511.16035 ↗First posted 20 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 22

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Prior work has introduced techniques for detecting when large language models (LLMs) lie, that is, generate statements they believe are false. However, these techniques are typically validated in narrow settings that do not capture the diverse lies LLMs can generate. We introduce LIARS' BENCH, a testbed consisting of 72,863 examples of lies and honest responses generated by four open-weight models across seven datasets. Our settings capture qualitatively different types of lies and vary along two dimensions: the model's reason for lying and the object of belief targeted by the lie. Evaluating three black- and white-box lie detection techniques on LIARS' BENCH, we find that existing techniques systematically fail to identify certain types of lies, especially in settings where it's not possible to determine whether the model lied from the transcript alone. Overall, LIARS' BENCH reveals limitations in prior techniques and provides a practical testbed for guiding progress in lie detection.

Key facts. Cited by 22 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 21.

22 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Difficulties with Evaluating a Deception Detector for AIscited by 13
  2. 2026The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception Probescited by 12
  3. 2026Linear representations in language models can change dramatically over a conversationcited by 10
  4. 2026One Probe Won't Catch Them All: Towards Targeted Deception Detectioncited by 9
  5. 2026Linear Probe Accuracy Scales with Model Size and Benefits from Multi-Layer Ensemblingcited by 4
  6. 2026"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organismscited by 4
  7. 2026Instrumental Choices: Measuring the Propensity of LLM Agents to Pursue Instrumental Behaviorscited by 3
  8. 2026Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditingcited by 2
  9. 2026The Point of No Return: Counterfactual Localization of Deceptive Commitment in Language-Model Reasoningcited by 1
  10. 2026(Mis)generalization of Helpful-only Fine-tuningcited by 1
  11. 2026Scaling Trends for Lie Detector Oversight in Preference Learningcited by 1
  12. 2026Probing the Limits of the Lie Detector Approach to LLM Deceptioncited by 0
10 more
  1. 2026Do Linear Probes Generalize Better in Persona Coordinates?cited by 0
  2. 2026Confidently Deceptive: On the Relationship Between Confidence and Deception in LLMscited by 0
  3. 2026Beyond Liars' Bench: The Impact of Lie Typology, Depth, and Sparsity on Deception Detection in LLMscited by 0
  4. 2026Selecting The Most Informative Tokens in Natural Language Autoencoderscited by 0
  5. 2026Alignment via Training Against Probes Without Losing Monitorabilitycited by 0
  6. 2026Unlearning Deceptive Behaviors in LLMs with Contrastive Forget Setscited by 0
  7. 2026Stress-Testing LLM Lie Detectors: Role-Play Failures and Spurious Correlationscited by 0
  8. 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deceptioncited by 0
  9. 2026Accuracy and Uncertainty in Machine Deception Detection (Research White Paper)cited by 0
  10. 2026On the Monitorability of Natural Language Autoencoders: Identification vs Discriminationcited by 0