Beyond Liars' Bench: The Impact of Lie Typology, Depth, and Sparsity on Deception Detection in LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Training probes to detect deceptive outputs from large language models is still an open problem. Recent work has demonstrated that detection probes fail especially in out-of-domain scenarios -- training on one type of lie does not transfer well to deception scenarios involving other types of lies. In this work, we conduct a systematic study on how various factors impact detection performance: representation depth, probe expressivity, sparse feature representations, and the lie typology of the training data. To this end, we augment standard benchmark training data with a supplementary dataset containing diverse types of deception, including fabrication, omission, and exaggeration examples. Analyzing these factors across seven probe types, our experimental results show that the optimal representation depth is highly dataset-dependent, more expressive probes provide only selective gains over linear baselines, and sparse autoencoder features perform similarly to dense hidden states. Ultimately, we demonstrate that the choice of training data and lie typology substantially changes detectability, highlighting that deception detection is a highly representation-dependent problem.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.
Builds on
13 of 24 references.
References · 13
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,391
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,313
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,286
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,280
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 950
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 824
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 750
- 2024Jumping Ahead: Improving Reconstruction Fidelity with JumpReLU Sparse Autoencoderscited by 292
- 2023How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated Questionscited by 82
- 2024Truth is Universal: Robust Detection of Lies in LLMscited by 79
- 2025Liars' Bench: Evaluating Lie Detectors for Language Modelscited by 19
- 2025Preference Learning with Lie Detectors can Induce Honesty or Evasioncited by 8
1 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Pressure-Testing Deception Probes in LLMs: Scaling, Robustness, and the Geometry of Deceptive Representations
- 2025Hidden in Plain Sight: Evaluation of the Deception Detection Capabilities of LLMs in Multimodal Settings
- 2025When Truthful Representations Flip Under Deceptive Instructions?
- 2026Stress-Testing LLM Lie Detectors: Role-Play Failures and Spurious Correlations
- 2026"Did you lie?" Evaluating Lie Detectors across Model Scale and Belief-Verified Model Organisms
- 2026Scaling Trends for Lie Detector Oversight in Preference Learning
- 2024Can Deception Detection Go Deeper? Dataset, Evaluation, and Benchmark for Deception Reasoning
- 2025Can LLMs Lie? Investigation beyond Hallucination