analiza aiqbench
This research investigates the limitations of current deception detection probes in Large Language Models by analyzing how lie typology, representation depth, and feature sparsity affect out-of-domain performance. The study concludes that detectability is highly dependent on specific training data distributions rather than universal model features, indicating a significant challenge for building robust safety mechanisms against diverse deceptive behaviors.
Beyond Liars' Bench: The Impact of Lie Typology, Depth, and Sparsity on Deception Detection in LLMs
arXiv:2607.20479v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
Abstract: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.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2607.20479 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.20479v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.20479 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 261 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · 25 aug. 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026

[AINews] OpenAI shuts off Cursor
Latent Space · 29 aug. 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026