Honesty Is the Best Policy: Defining and Mitigating AI Deception
Francis Ward, Francesca Toni, Francesco Belardinelli, Tom Everitt
Abstract
Deceptive agents are a challenge for the safety, trustworthiness, and cooperation of AI systems. We focus on the problem that agents might deceive in order to achieve their goals (for instance, in our experiments with language models, the goal of being evaluated as truthful). There are a number of existing definitions of deception in the literature on game theory and symbolic AI, but there is no overarching theory of deception for learning agents in games. We introduce a formal definition of deception in structural causal games, grounded in the philosophy literature, and applicable to real-world machine learning systems. Several examples and results illustrate that our formal definition aligns with the philosophical and commonsense meaning of deception. Our main technical result is to provide graphical criteria for deception. We show, experimentally, that these results can be used to mitigate deception in reinforcement learning agents and language models.
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 2e6b499e-5149-4b46-b5fe-38e63e7d9a51Cited by top-tier papers15
- Secret Collusion among AI Agents: Multi-Agent Deception via SteganographySumeet Ramesh Motwani, Mikhail Baranchuk, Martin Strohmeier, Vijay Bolina et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 140 citations
- Robust agents learn causal world modelsJonathan Richens, Tom EverittICLR 2024 · 78 citations
- AI Alignment with Changing and Influenceable Reward FunctionsMicah Carroll, Davis Foote, Anand Siththaranjan, Stuart Russell et al.ICML 2024 · 44 citations
- When Your AIs Deceive You: Challenges of Partial Observability in Reinforcement Learning from Human FeedbackLeon Lang, Davis Foote, Stuart J. Russell, Anca D. Dragan et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 18 citations
- Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign PromptsZhaomin Wu, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng, Bingsheng HeICLR 2026 · 11 citations
Builds on8
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- How to Catch an AI Liar: Lie Detection in Black-Box LLMs by Asking Unrelated QuestionsLorenzo Pacchiardi, Alex James Chan, Sören Mindermann, Ilan Moscovitz et al.ICLR 2024 · 88 citations
- Robust agents learn causal world modelsJonathan Richens, Tom EverittICLR 2024 · 78 citations
Related papers
- Are Your Agents Upward Deceivers?Dadi Guo, Qingyu Liu, Dongrui Liu, Qihan Ren et al.ICML 2026 · 5 citations
- Among Us: A Sandbox for Measuring and Detecting Agentic DeceptionSatvik Golechha, Adrià Garriga-AlonsoNeurIPS 2025 · 27 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
- CausalGame: Benchmarking Causal Thinking of LLM Agents in GamesZhenhao Chen, Yongqiang Chen, Chenxi Liu, Junchi Yu et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Sycophancy Towards Researchers Drives Performative MisalignmentDavid Baek, Xinnuo Li, Anay Gupta, Taslim Mahbub et al.ICML 2026
