Intentional Deception as Controllable Capability in LLM Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.07848v1
• Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2026 23:48:49 GMT
• Title: Intentional Deception as Controllable Capability in LLM Agents
• Abstract summary: We present a systematic study of intentional deception as an engineered capability in multi-agent systems.<n>We investigate a two-stage system that infers target agent characteristics and generates deceptive responses steering targets toward actions counter to their beliefs and motivations.<n>We find that deceptive intervention produces differential effects concentrated in specific behavioral profiles rather than distributed uniformly.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: As LLM-based agents increasingly operate in multi-agent systems, understanding adversarial manipulation becomes critical for defensive design. We present a systematic study of intentional deception as an engineered capability, using LLM-to-LLM interactions within a text-based RPG where parameterized behavioral profiles (9 alignments x 4 motivations, yielding 36 profiles with explicit ethical ground truth) serve as our experimental testbed. Unlike accidental deception from misalignment, we investigate a two-stage system that infers target agent characteristics and generates deceptive responses steering targets toward actions counter to their beliefs and motivations. We find that deceptive intervention produces differential effects concentrated in specific behavioral profiles rather than distributed uniformly, and that 88.5% of successful deceptions employ misdirection (true statements with strategic framing) rather than fabrication, indicating fact-checking defenses would miss the large majority of adversarial responses. Motivation, inferable at 98%+ accuracy, serves as the primary attack vector, while belief systems remain harder to identify (49% inference ceiling) or exploit. These findings identify which agent profiles require additional safeguards and suggest that current fact-verification approaches are insufficient against strategically framed deception.

Related papers

• "I Strongly Suspect This Website Is a Scam": Benchmarking PII Leakage and Detection without Defense in Autonomous Web Agents [7.499940157426921]
  Social-engineering attacks are highly effective at extracting critical-tier PII from frontier web agents.<n>Across frontier agents, we find that critical-tier PII leakage reaches 54--93% under no privacy guidance.<n>Our findings reveal that defenses conditioned on the agent's own recognition of an attack are gating on the wrong signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T03:00:28Z)
• The Capability Paradox: How Smarter Auditors Make Multi-Agent Systems Less Secure [11.822284421559814]
  We identify semantic hijacking, an attack in which harmful requests are concealed within domain-specific narratives and propagated to a Manager through Worker reports.<n>As Worker capability increases, the mean system-level Attack Success Rate (ASR) increases from 18.4% to 63.9%, peaking at 94.4%.<n>We propose heterogeneous ensemble verification, which pairs Workers of asymmetric domain competence so their complementary vulnerabilities break the certainty-to-execution chain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T14:42:44Z)
• LoopTrap: Termination Poisoning Attacks on LLM Agents [22.325071451367265]
  We show that by injecting malicious prompts into the agent's context, an adversary can distort the agent's termination judgment.<n>We introduce LoopTrap, an automated red-teaming framework that synthesizes target-specific malicious prompts by exploiting agent behavioral tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T08:21:51Z)
• Taming Actor-Observer Asymmetry in Agents via Dialectical Alignment [59.536125286960186]
  Multi-agent frameworks assigning specialized roles are increasingly adopted to enable self-reflection and mutual auditing.<n>We find it simultaneously induces a human-like cognitive bias known as Actor-Observer Asymmetry.<n>ReTAS guides agents to synthesize conflicting viewpoints into an objective consensus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T15:05:58Z)
• Measuring and Exploiting Confirmation Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review [6.417595678110472]
  We study whether confirmation bias affects LLM-based vulnerability detection, and whether this failure mode can be exploited in software supply-chain attacks.<n>Study 1 quantifies confirmation bias through controlled experiments on 250 CVE vulnerability/patch pairs evaluated across four state-of-the-art models under five framing conditions for the review prompt.<n>Study 2 evaluates exploitability in practice mimicking adversarial pull requests that reintroduce known vulnerabilities while framed as security improvements or urgent functionality fixes via their pull request metadata.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:40:27Z)
• The Why Behind the Action: Unveiling Internal Drivers via Agentic Attribution [63.61358761489141]
  Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are widely used in real-world applications such as customer service, web navigation, and software engineering.<n>We propose a novel framework for textbfgeneral agentic attribution, designed to identify the internal factors driving agent actions regardless of the task outcome.<n>We validate our framework across a diverse suite of agentic scenarios, including standard tool use and subtle reliability risks like memory-induced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T15:22:21Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• 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)
• Can an Individual Manipulate the Collective Decisions of Multi-Agents? [53.01767232004823]
  M-Spoiler is a framework that simulates agent interactions within a multi-agent system to generate adversarial samples.<n>M-Spoiler introduces a stubborn agent that actively aids in optimizing adversarial samples.<n>Our findings confirm the risks posed by the knowledge of an individual agent in multi-agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T01:54:20Z)
• AgentMisalignment: Measuring the Propensity for Misaligned Behaviour in LLM-Based Agents [0.0]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents become more widespread, associated misalignment risks increase.<n>In this work, we approach misalignment as a conflict between the internal goals pursued by the model and the goals intended by its deployer.<n>We introduce a misalignment propensity benchmark, textscAgentMisalignment, a benchmark suite designed to evaluate the propensity of LLM agents to misalign in realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T14:46:47Z)
• Defending the Edge: Representative-Attention for Mitigating Backdoor Attacks in Federated Learning [7.808916974942399]
  heterogeneous edge devices produce diverse, non-independent, and identically distributed (non-IID) data.<n>We propose a novel representative-attention-based defense mechanism, named FeRA, to distinguish benign from malicious clients.<n>Our evaluation demonstrates FeRA's robustness across various FL scenarios, including challenging non-IID data distributions typical of edge devices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:44:32Z)
• Preemptive Detection and Correction of Misaligned Actions in LLM Agents [58.39520480675366]
  InferAct is a novel approach to detect misaligned actions before execution.<n>It alerts users for timely correction, preventing adverse outcomes.<n>InferAct achieves up to 20% improvements on Marco-F1 against baselines in misaligned action detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T15:24:44Z)

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.