One Probe Won't Catch Them All: Towards Targeted Deception Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Linear probes are a promising approach for monitoring AI systems for deceptive behaviour. Previous work has shown that a linear classifier trained on a contrastive instruction pair and a simple dataset can achieve good performance. However, these probes exhibit notable failures even in straightforward scenarios, including spurious correlations and false positives on non-deceptive responses. In this paper, we demonstrate that deception detection is inherently heterogeneous: while a single universal probe achieves modest improvements (+0.032 AUC), post-hoc oracle analysis reveals substantially higher potential (+0.108 AUC) when probes are matched to specific deception types, and synthetic validation experiments suggest this ceiling is achievable a priori when the deception type is known in advance. Our findings reveal that instruction pairs capture deceptive intent rather than content-specific patterns, explaining why prompt choice dominates probe performance (70.6% of variance). Given this heterogeneity, we conclude that organizations should define their specific threat models and deploy appropriately matched probes rather than seeking a universal deception detector.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Feb 2026.
Builds on
12 of 22 references.
References · 12
- 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Spacecited by 763
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 673
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
- 2025Chain of Thought Monitorability: A New and Fragile Opportunity for AI Safetycited by 222
- 2023AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutionscited by 185
- 2025Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithfulcited by 166
- 2023Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblockscited by 77
- 2025Stress Testing Deliberative Alignment for Anti-Scheming Trainingcited by 71
- 2025The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systemscited by 57
- 2025Benchmarking Deception Probes via Black-to-White Performance Boostscited by 17
- 2025Liars' Bench: Evaluating Lie Detectors for Language Modelscited by 17
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organismscited by 2
- 2026What Do Compliance Detectors Read? An Audit of Activation Probes and Guard Modelscited by 1
- 2026Do Linear Probes Generalize Better in Persona Coordinates?cited by 0
- 2026Asymmetries in Spontaneous and Instructed Deceptioncited by 0
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probescited by 0
- 2026Stress-Testing LLM Lie Detectors: Role-Play Failures and Spurious Correlationscited by 0
- 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deceptioncited by 0
- 2026Caught in the Act: Probes Effectively Detect Sabotage and Catch Unverbalized Deception8 Oct 2026
- 2026Stress-Testing LLM Lie Detectors: Role-Play Failures and Spurious Correlations30 Sep 2026
- 2026The Truth Was Never Gone: Perfect Aliasing in Compliant-Context Truth Probes9 Sep 2026
- 2026Asymmetries in Spontaneous and Instructed Deception31 Aug 2026
- 2026What Do Compliance Detectors Read? An Audit of Activation Probes and Guard Models17 Aug 2026
- 2026"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organisms10 Jun 2026
- 2026Do Linear Probes Generalize Better in Persona Coordinates?10 May 2026