Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a unified taxonomy for LLM deception, categorizing misleading outputs based on goal-directedness, object of deception, and mechanism. Applying this taxonomy to 50 existing benchmarks reveals a bias towards testing fabrication while neglecting pragmatic distortion, attribution, and capability self-knowledge. The authors provide recommendations and a reporting template to guide future research and regulation of LLM deception.
LLM deception benchmarks overwhelmingly focus on fabrication, leaving critical gaps in evaluating pragmatic distortion and strategic manipulation.
Large language models (LLMs) produce systematically misleading outputs, from hallucinated citations to strategic deception of evaluators, yet these phenomena are studied by separate communities with incompatible terminology. We propose a unified taxonomy organized along three complementary dimensions: degree of goal-directedness (behavioral to strategic deception), object of deception, and mechanism (fabrication, omission, or pragmatic distortion). Applying this taxonomy to 50 existing benchmarks reveals that every benchmark tests fabrication while pragmatic distortion, attribution, and capability self-knowledge remain critically under-covered, and strategic deception benchmarks are nascent. We offer concrete recommendations for developers and regulators, including a minimal reporting template for positioning future work within our framework.
CMU ML