Intentional Deception as Controllable Capability in LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Social simulation and multi-agent debate
Abstract (arXiv)
As LLM-based agents increasingly operate in multi-agent systems, understanding adversarial manipulation becomes critical for defensive design. We present a systematic study of intentional deception as an engineered capability, using LLM-to-LLM interactions within a text-based RPG where parameterized behavioral profiles (9 alignments x 4 motivations, yielding 36 profiles with explicit ethical ground truth) serve as our experimental testbed. Unlike accidental deception from misalignment, we investigate a two-stage system that infers target agent characteristics and generates deceptive responses steering targets toward actions counter to their beliefs and motivations. We find that deceptive intervention produces differential effects concentrated in specific behavioral profiles rather than distributed uniformly, and that 88.5% of successful deceptions employ misdirection (true statements with strategic framing) rather than fabrication, indicating fact-checking defenses would miss the large majority of adversarial responses. Motivation, inferable at 98%+ accuracy, serves as the primary attack vector, while belief systems remain harder to identify (49% inference ceiling) or exploit. These findings identify which agent profiles require additional safeguards and suggest that current fact-verification approaches are insufficient against strategically framed deception.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Social simulation and multi-agent debate, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 9 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Mar 2026.
Builds on
9 of 15 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 8
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2016Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIscited by 602
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2017Inverse Reward Designcited by 246
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 136
- 2023Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deceptioncited by 40
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026DecepEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Deception in LLM Agents
- 2023Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Models
- 2026Lying to Win: Assessing LLM Deception through Human-AI Games and Parallel-World Probing
- 2026Lies We Can See: Joint Verbal and Non-Verbal Deception by VLM Agents in Embodied Social Interactions
- 2026SPADE-Bench: Evaluating Spontaneous Strategic Deception in Agents via Plan-Action Divergence
- 2026LieCraft: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating Deceptive Capabilities in Language Models
- 2026Even More Deception: Objective Misalignment in Mixed-Motive LLM Multi-Agent Systems
- 2026DeceptGuard :A Constitutional Oversight Framework For Detecting Deception in LLM Agents