Tatemae: Detecting Alignment Faking via Tool Selection in LLMs
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks
Abstract (arXiv)
Alignment faking (AF) occurs when an LLM strategically complies with training objectives to avoid value modification, reverting to prior preferences once monitoring is lifted. Current detection methods focus on conversational settings and rely primarily on Chain-of-Thought (CoT) analysis, which provides a reliable signal when strategic reasoning surfaces, but cannot distinguish deception from capability failures if traces are absent or unfaithful. We formalize AF as a composite behavioural event and detect it through observable tool selection, where the LLM selects the safe tool when unmonitored, but switches to the unsafe tool under monitoring that rewards helpfulness over safety, while its reasoning still acknowledges the safe choice. We release a dataset of 108 enterprise IT scenarios spanning Security, Privacy, and Integrity domains under Corruption and Sabotage pressures. Evaluating six frontier LLMs across five independent runs, we find mean AF detection rates between 3.5% and 23.7%, with vulnerability profiles varying by domain and pressure type. These results suggest that susceptibility reflects training methodology rather than capability alone.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment and jailbreak attacks, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 35 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Apr 2026.
Builds on
35 of 54 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 34
- 2023Gorilla: Large Language Model Connected with Massive APIscited by 1,302
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,081
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 755
- 2023Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoningcited by 668
- 2023Identifying the Risks of LM Agents with an LM-Emulated Sandboxcited by 514
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 478
- 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 443
- 2024AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agentscited by 406
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscationcited by 338
22 more
- 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
- 2024Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agentscited by 280
- 2023AI Alignment: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 256
- 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
- 2022The Alignment Problem from a Deep Learning Perspectivecited by 246
- 2025Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAGcited by 242
- 2023AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutionscited by 185
- 2023Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language modelscited by 174
- 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 158
- 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 136
- 2023Large Language Models can Strategically Deceive their Users when Put Under Pressurecited by 132
- 2023Deception Abilities Emerged in Large Language Modelscited by 99
- 2023Scheming AIs: Will AIs fake alignment during training in order to get power?cited by 90
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 49
- 2023Fake Alignment: Are LLMs Really Aligned Well?cited by 39
- 2025Evaluating Frontier Models for Stealth and Situational Awarenesscited by 30
- 2025Mitigating Deceptive Alignment via Self-Monitoringcited by 25
- 2025Why Do Some Language Models Fake Alignment While Others Don't?cited by 16
- 2024Poser: Unmasking Alignment Faking LLMs by Manipulating Their Internalscited by 13
- 2025Strategic Dishonesty Can Undermine AI Safety Evaluations of Frontier LLMscited by 13
- 2025LLMs Deceive Unintentionally: Emergent Misalignment in Dishonesty from Misaligned Samples to Biased Human-AI Interactionscited by 7
- 2025Empirical Evidence for Alignment Faking in a Small LLM and Prompt-Based Mitigation Techniquescited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026ToolAlignBench: Investigating Alignment Conflicts in Tool-Calling Enabled LLMs
- 2025Alignment Faking - the Train -> Deploy Asymmetry: Through a Game-Theoretic Lens with Bayesian-Stackelberg Equilibria
- 2026Safeguarding LLM Agents from Misalignment through Provenance Analysis
- 2026Guardrails as Scapegoats: Auditing Unfaithful Safety Refusals in Tool-Augmented LLM Agents
- 2026Auditing Provenance Sensitivity in LLM Agent Action Selection
- 2026Does Reasoning Preserve Alignment? On the Trustworthiness of Large Reasoning Models
- 2025XBreaking: Understanding how LLMs security alignment can be broken
- 2025MindGuard: Intrinsic Decision Inspection for Securing LLM Agents Against Metadata Poisoning