Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06361v2
• Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 09:05:19 GMT
• Title: Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign Prompts
• Authors: Zhaomin Wu, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng, Bingsheng He,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks.<n>We propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions(CSQ) to quantify the likelihood of deception.
• Score: 79.1081247754018
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks, making their trustworthiness critical. A significant and underexplored risk is intentional deception, where an LLM deliberately fabricates or conceals information to serve a hidden objective. Existing studies typically induce deception by explicitly setting a hidden objective through prompting or fine-tuning, which may not reflect real-world human-LLM interactions. Moving beyond such human-induced deception, we investigate LLMs' self-initiated deception on benign prompts. To address the absence of ground truth, we propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions~(CSQ). This framework introduces two statistical metrics derived from psychological principles to quantify the likelihood of deception. The first, the Deceptive Intention Score, measures the model's bias toward a hidden objective. The second, the Deceptive Behavior Score, measures the inconsistency between the LLM's internal belief and its expressed output. Evaluating 16 leading LLMs, we find that both metrics rise in parallel and escalate with task difficulty for most models. Moreover, increasing model capacity does not always reduce deception, posing a significant challenge for future LLM development.

Related papers

• Reasoning with Confidence: Efficient Verification of LLM Reasoning Steps via Uncertainty Heads [104.9566359759396]
  We propose a lightweight alternative for step-level reasoning verification based on data-driven uncertainty scores.<n>Our findings suggest that the internal states of LLMs encode their uncertainty and can serve as reliable signals for reasoning verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T03:38:29Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Mitigating Hidden Confounding by Progressive Confounder Imputation via Large Language Models [46.92706900119399]
  We make the first attempt to mitigate hidden confounding using large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose ProCI, a framework that elicits the semantic and world knowledge of LLMs to iteratively generate, impute, and validate hidden confounders.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that ProCI uncovers meaningful confounders and significantly improves treatment effect estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-26T03:49:13Z)
• When Thinking LLMs Lie: Unveiling the Strategic Deception in Representations of Reasoning Models [9.05950721565821]
  We study strategic deception in large language models (LLMs)<n>We induce, detect, and control such deception in CoT-enabled LLMs.<n>We achieve a 40% success rate in eliciting context-appropriate deception without explicit prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T11:44:19Z)
• How to Protect Yourself from 5G Radiation? Investigating LLM Responses to Implicit Misinformation [35.365004091470944]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in diverse scenarios.<n>The extent to which they could tacitly spread misinformation emerges as a critical safety concern.<n>We curated EchoMist, the first benchmark for implicit misinformation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T17:59:18Z)
• Deception in LLMs: Self-Preservation and Autonomous Goals in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Recent advances in Large Language Models have incorporated planning and reasoning capabilities.<n>This has reduced errors in mathematical and logical tasks while improving accuracy.<n>Our study examines DeepSeek R1, a model trained to output reasoning tokens similar to OpenAI's o1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T21:26:37Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Think Twice Before Trusting: Self-Detection for Large Language Models through Comprehensive Answer Reflection [90.71323430635593]
  We propose a novel self-detection paradigm that considers the comprehensive answer space beyond LLM-generated answers. Building upon this paradigm, we introduce a two-step framework, which firstly instructs LLM to reflect and provide justifications for each candidate answer. This framework can be seamlessly integrated with existing approaches for superior self-detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:38:26Z)
• Don't Go To Extremes: Revealing the Excessive Sensitivity and Calibration Limitations of LLMs in Implicit Hate Speech Detection [29.138463029748547]
  This paper explores the capability of Large Language Models to detect implicit hate speech and express confidence in their responses. Our findings highlight that LLMs exhibit two extremes: (1) LLMs display excessive sensitivity towards groups or topics that may cause fairness issues, resulting in misclassifying benign statements as hate speech.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T00:04:40Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Assessing Hidden Risks of LLMs: An Empirical Study on Robustness, Consistency, and Credibility [37.682136465784254]
  We conduct over a million queries to the mainstream large language models (LLMs) including ChatGPT, LLaMA, and OPT. We find that ChatGPT is still capable to yield the correct answer even when the input is polluted at an extreme level. We propose a novel index associated with a dataset that roughly decides the feasibility of using such data for LLM-involved evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-15T15:44:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.