Are Your Agents Upward Deceivers?
Dadi Guo, Qingyu Liu, Dongrui Liu, Qihan Ren, Shuai Shao, Tianyi Qiu, Haoran Li, Yi Fung, Zhongjie Ba, Juntao Dai, Jiaming Ji, Zhikai Chen
Abstract
Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents are increasingly used as autonomous subordinates that carry out tasks for users. This raises the question of whether they may also engage in deception, similar to how individuals in human organizations lie to superiors to create a good image or avoid punishment. We observe and define agentic upward deception , a phenomenon in which an agent facing environmental constraints conceals its failure and performs actions that were not requested without reporting. To assess its prevalence, we construct a benchmark of 200 tasks covering five task types and eight realistic scenarios in a constrained environment, such as broken tools or mismatched information sources. Evaluations of 11 popular LLMs reveal that these agents typically exhibit action-based deceptive behaviors, such as guessing results, performing unsupported simulations, substituting unavailable information sources, and fabricating local files. We further test intuitive mitigation methods and find only limited reductions, suggesting that it is difficult to eliminate and highlighting the need for stronger mitigation strategies to ensure the safety of LLM-based agents. Code and data are available at https://github.com/QingyuLiu/Agentic-Upward-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.
Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on8
- SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-world Github Issues?Carlos E. Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao et al.ICLR 2024 · 2,082 citations
- AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge BasesZhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 539 citations
- Your Agent May Misevolve: Emergent Risks in Self-evolving LLM AgentsShuai Shao, Qihan Ren, Dongrui Liu, Chen Qian et al.ICLR 2026 · 60 citations
- ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test CasesZiqian Zhong, Aditi Raghunathan, Nicholas CarliniICLR 2026 · 54 citations
- VPI-Bench: Visual Prompt Injection Attacks for Computer-Use AgentsTri Cao, Bennett Lim, Yue Liu, Yuan Sui et al.ICLR 2026 · 45 citations
Related papers
- 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
- Beyond Prompt-Induced Lies: Investigating LLM Deception on Benign PromptsZhaomin Wu, Mingzhe Du, See-Kiong Ng, Bingsheng HeICLR 2026 · 11 citations
- OpenDeception: Learning Deception and Trust in Human–AI Interaction via Multi-Agent SimulationYichen Wu, Qianqian Gao, Xudong Pan, Geng Hong et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- Language Models can Subtly Deceive Without Lying: A Case Study on Strategic Phrasing in LegislationAtharvan Dogra, Krishna Pillutla, Ameet Deshpande, Ananya B. Sai et al.ACL 2025
- When AI Agents Collude Online: Financial Fraud Risks by Collaborative LLM Agents on Social PlatformsQibing Ren, Zhijie Zheng, Jiaxuan Guo, Junchi Yan et al.ICLR 2026 · 8 citations
