Probing the Limits of the Lie Detector Approach to LLM Deception
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Mechanistic approaches to deception in large language models (LLMs) often rely on "lie detectors", that is, truth probes trained to identify internal representations of model outputs as false. The lie detector approach to LLM deception implicitly assumes that deception is coextensive with lying. This paper challenges that assumption. It experimentally investigates whether LLMs can deceive without producing false statements and whether truth probes fail to detect such behavior. Across three open-source LLMs, it is shown that some models reliably deceive by producing misleading non-falsities, particularly when guided by few-shot prompting. It is further demonstrated that truth probes trained on standard true-false datasets are significantly better at detecting lies than at detecting deception without lying, confirming a critical blind spot of current mechanistic deception detection approaches. It is proposed that future work should incorporate non-lying deception in dialogical settings into probe training and explore representations of second-order beliefs to more directly target the conceptual constituents of deception.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Feb 2026.
Builds on
23 of 30 references.
References · 23
- 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 659
- 2023AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutionscited by 188
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 146
- 2023Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Modelscited by 101
- 2023How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated Questionscited by 83
- 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 79
11 more
- 2023Still No Lie Detector for Language Models: Probing Empirical and Conceptual Roadblockscited by 78
- 2025Detecting Strategic Deception Using Linear Probescited by 68
- 2023Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checkscited by 47
- 2024On Targeted Manipulation and Deception when Optimizing LLMs for User Feedbackcited by 47
- 2024Language Models Represent Beliefs of Self and Otherscited by 31
- 2024Standards for Belief Representations in LLMscited by 30
- 2025Liars' Bench: Evaluating Lie Detectors for Language Modelscited by 22
- 2025Benchmarking Deception Probes via Black-to-White Performance Boostscited by 19
- 2025Compromising Honesty and Harmlessness in Language Models via Deception Attackscited by 17
- 2025Difficulties with Evaluating a Deception Detector for AIscited by 13
- 2024An Assessment of Model-On-Model Deceptioncited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.