Language Models can Subtly Deceive Without Lying: A Case Study on Strategic Phrasing in Legislation
Atharvan Dogra, Krishna Pillutla, Ameet Deshpande, Ananya B. Sai, John J. Nay, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, Balaraman Ravindran
Abstract
We explore the ability of large language models (LLMs) to engage in subtle deception through strategically phrasing and intentionally manipulating information. This harmful behavior can be hard to detect, unlike blatant lying or unintentional hallucination. We build a simple testbed mimicking a legislative environment where a corporate lobbyist module is proposing amendments to bills that benefit a specific company while evading identification of this benefactor. We use real-world legislative bills matched with potentially affected companies to ground these interactions. Our results show that LLM lobbyists can draft subtle phrasing to avoid such identification by strong LLM-based detectors. Further optimization of the phrasing using LLM-based re-planning and re-sampling increases deception rates by up to 40 percentage points. Our human evaluations to verify the quality of deceptive generations and their retention of self-serving intent show significant coherence with our automated metrics and also help in identifying certain strategies of deceptive phrasing. This study highlights the risk of LLMs' capabilities for strategic phrasing through seemingly neutral language to attain self-serving goals. This calls for future research to uncover and protect against such subtle deception.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0b0506ea-fdae-4185-9205-628879e987c1Cited by top-tier papers2
- Lying with Truths: Open-Channel Multi-Agent Collusion for Belief Manipulation via Generative MontageJinwei Hu, Xinmiao Huang, Youcheng Sun, Yi Dong et al.ACL 2026 · 11 citations
- LH-DECEPTION: Simulating and Understanding LLM Deceptive Behaviors in Long-Horizon InteractionsYang Xu, Xuanming Zhang, Samuel (Min-Hsuan) Yeh, Jwala Dhamala et al.ICLR 2026 · 7 citations
Builds on9
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use ToolsTimo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,989 citations
- Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learningNoah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 5,828 citations
- Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought PromptingMiles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, Samuel R. BowmanNeurIPS 2023 · 1,792 citations
- CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive CritiquingZhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen et al.ICLR 2024 · 699 citations
Related papers
- Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign PromptsZhaomin Wu, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng, Bingsheng HeICLR 2026 · 11 citations
- Deception at Scale: Deceptive Designs in 1K LLM-Generated E-Commerce ComponentsZiwei Chen, Jiawen Shen, Luna, Hanyu Zhang et al.CHI 2026 · 3 citations
- "Can LLMs Persuade Humans with Deception?": From a Deceptive Strategy Taxonomy to a Large-Scale Empirical StudyHaein Yeo, Seungwan Jin, Taehyung Noh, Yejin Shin et al.CHI 2026 · 2 citations
- Are Your Agents Upward Deceivers?Dadi Guo, Qingyu Liu, Dongrui Liu, Qihan Ren et al.ICML 2026 · 5 citations
- PRISON: Unmasking the Criminal Potential of Large Language ModelsXinyi Wu, Geng Hong, Pei Chen, Yueyue Chen et al.ICLR 2026 · 3 citations
