mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

DECOR: Auditing LLM Deception via Information Manipulation Theory

arXiv 2605.19270 ↗First posted 19 May 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models can deceive by subtly manipulating truthful information -- omitting key facts, shifting focus, or obscuring meaning -- making such behavior difficult to detect. Existing black-box methods rely on coarse-grained judgments, offering limited interpretability and failing to pinpoint which facts were distorted and how. We introduce DECOR, a multi-agent framework grounded in Information Manipulation Theory for fine-grained auditing of strategic deception in LLM responses. DECOR decomposes input contexts into atomic informational units and scores each unit against the response across four dimensions of manipulation, producing interpretable manipulation profiles that are aggregated into a global deception index. We comprehensively evaluate DECOR on both single-turn and multi-turn deception detection benchmarks spanning real-world domains, and show that DECOR achieves state-of-the-art performance on both, outperforming competitive baselines. The framework generalizes across 15 frontier models, and ablation studies confirm the contribution of each key design component. Our findings demonstrate that fine-grained, theory-grounded auditing of information manipulation offers an effective and interpretable path for LLM deception detection.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 39 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

Builds on

26 of 39 references.

References · 26

  1. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
  2. 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
  3. 2024Alignment faking in large language modelscited by 316
  4. 2024Frontier Models are Capable of In-context Schemingcited by 252
  5. 2023AI Deception: A Survey of Examples, Risks, and Potential Solutionscited by 185
  6. 2023Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmarkcited by 174
  7. 2023LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examinationcited by 155
  8. 2025Agentic Misalignment: How LLMs Could Be Insider Threatscited by 136
  9. 2024Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via Steganographycited by 107
  10. 2023How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated Questionscited by 82
  11. 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 49
  12. 2024AI-LieDar: Examine the Trade-off Between Utility and Truthfulness in LLM Agentscited by 28
14 more
  1. 2025DarkBench: Benchmarking Dark Patterns in Large Language Modelscited by 25
  2. 2025LLM Can be a Dangerous Persuader: Empirical Study of Persuasion Safety in Large Language Modelscited by 21
  3. 2024BeHonest: Benchmarking Honesty in Large Language Modelscited by 20
  4. 2025Human Decision-making is Susceptible to AI-driven Manipulationcited by 19
  5. 2025Towards eliciting latent knowledge from LLMs with mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 19
  6. 2025When Thinking LLMs Lie: Unveiling the Strategic Deception in Representations of Reasoning Modelscited by 16
  7. 2025When Do Large Language Models Exhibit Unsolicited Deception?cited by 9
  8. 2025Can LLMs Lie? Investigation beyond Hallucinationcited by 7
  9. 2025AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controlscited by 7
  10. 2026Constitutional Black-Box Monitoring for Scheming in LLM Agentscited by 7
  11. 2025LH-Deception: Simulating and Understanding LLM Deceptive Behaviors in Long-Horizon Interactionscited by 6
  12. 2026Evaluating Language Models for Harmful Manipulationcited by 6
  13. 2025Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Promptscited by 5
  14. 2025Detecting Malicious AI Agents Through Simulated Interactionscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.