DeceptGuard :A Constitutional Oversight Framework For Detecting Deception in LLM Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance
Abstract (arXiv)
Reliable detection of deceptive behavior in Large Language Model (LLM) agents is an essential prerequisite for safe deployment in high-stakes agentic contexts. Prior work on scheming detection has focused exclusively on black-box monitors that observe only externally visible tool calls and outputs, discarding potentially rich internal reasoning signals. We introduce DECEPTGUARD, a unified framework that systematically compares three monitoring regimes: black-box monitors (actions and outputs only), CoT-aware monitors (additionally observing the agent's chain-of-thought reasoning trace), and activation-probe monitors (additionally reading hidden-state representations from a frozen open-weights encoder). We introduce DECEPTSYNTH, a scalable synthetic pipeline for generating deception-positive and deception-negative agent trajectories across a novel 12-category taxonomy spanning verbal, behavioral, and structural deception. Our monitors are optimized on 4,800 synthetic trajectories and evaluated on 9,200 held-out samples from DeceptArena, a benchmark of realistic sandboxed agent environments with execution-verified labels. Across all evaluation settings, CoT-aware and activation-probe monitors substantially outperform their black-box counterparts (mean pAUROC improvement of +0.097), with the largest gains on subtle, long-horizon deception that leaves minimal behavioral footprints. We empirically characterize a transparency-detectability trade-off: as agents learn to suppress overt behavioral signals, chain-of-thought becomes the primary detection surface but is itself increasingly unreliable due to post-training faithfulness degradation. We propose HYBRID-CONSTITUTIONAL ensembles as a robust defense-in-depth approach, achieving a pAUROC of 0.934 on the held-out test set, representing a substantial advance over the prior state of the art.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 28 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Mar 2026.
Builds on
28 of 40 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 27
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,239
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2021A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignmentcited by 1,023
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2024Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single Directioncited by 960
- 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
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
15 more
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2019Risks from Learned Optimization in Advanced Machine Learning Systemscited by 250
- 2022The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspectivecited by 246
- 2023AI Control: Improving Safety Despite Intentional Subversioncited by 207
- 2023Linearity of Relation Decoding in Transformer Language Modelscited by 190
- 2025Constitutional Classifiers: Defending against Universal Jailbreaks across Thousands of Hours of Red Teamingcited by 172
- 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 131
- 2019Optimal Policies Tend to Seek Powercited by 115
- 2025SycEval: Evaluating LLM Sycophancycited by 101
- 2023Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?cited by 90
- 2022Adversarial Training for High-Stakes Reliabilitycited by 60
- 2023Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deceptioncited by 40
- 2025Token-Level Marginalization for Multi-Label LLM Classifierscited by 1
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
- 2026Before Agent Tells The Lie: Has Deception Already Been Represented?
- 2026Lying to Win: Assessing LLM Deception through Human-AI Games and Parallel-World Probing
- 2025Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoring
- 2026Decoding Hidden Deception in Reasoning LLMs: Activation Explainers for Deception Auditing
- 2025Caught in the Act: a mechanistic approach to detecting deception
- 2025DecepChain: Inducing Deceptive Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2025Among Us: A Sandbox for Measuring and Detecting Agentic Deception