A persistent accuracy ceiling in automated verbal deception detection

The current work developed seven Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models based on leading deception theories and compared how deception judgments were made relative to baseline models. Across 700 statements drawn from five published deception datasets, four large language models (gpt-4o, claude-sonnet-4-6, ollama/llama3, deepseek-v4-flash), and two run-types (RAG vs. baseline), a total of 39,200 deception judgments were rendered. Detection accuracies were consistent with typical human accuracies and not statistically different across RAG (54.5%) and baseline models (54.6%). RAG-based models (57.0%) were less truth-biased than baseline models (59.7%), but the effect size was quite small. Theoretical perspective mattered little for accuracy yet mattered substantially for response bias, which ranged from highly lie-biased (the verifiability approach, 32.2%) to highly truth-biased (truth-default theory, 88.1%). Content effects and model effects further moderated the results. Theory-guided AI judgments are unreliable with current parameters, yet they might show promise with additional datasets, model testing, and theory-to-data matching.

Deception detection is a critical and highly challenging task within affective computing and behavioral analysis. Existing deep learning methods typically treat this task as a straightforward classification problem; however, this black-box approach lacks interpretability and fails to capture the complex logical deduction processes utilized by human experts when identifying lies. While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown potential, applying them effectively requires a bridge between low-level audiovisual cues and high-level logical reasoning. In this paper, we propose DeceptionX, a novel MLLM framework that shifts the paradigm of deception detection from black-box classification to an interpretable Observe-Think-Summarize reasoning process. To address the scarcity of high-quality reasoning data, we first constructed DeceptChain, a high-quality dataset developed through a human-in-the-loop process. This dataset synthesizes fine-grained visual and auditory evidence (such as micro-expressions and vocal tremors) into structured chain-of-thought reasoning data. Furthermore, we propose a three-stage training pipeline and a Discrepancy-Aware Redundancy Elimination~(DARE) strategy for DeceptionX to further enhance the model's generalization capabilities. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DeceptionX not only outperforms existing MLLM baselines and state-of-the-art methods on standard real-world benchmarks but also provides transparent, expert-level reasoning paths, bridging the critical gap between accuracy and interpretability in multimodal deception detection.

The increasing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are being accompanied by deep-rooted risks of deceptive behaviours that cause models to produce misleading outputs in service of a contextually or experimentally induced goal. The harm posed by such behaviours depends not only on the content of deceptive outputs but also how confidently models deliver them, since confidence has a major impact on how persuasive the communication is to end users. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive study on the crucial relationship between confidence and deception across existing deception benchmarks and different model families, while covering both verbalized numerical and logit-based aggregated confidence. Through this, we reveal how confidently models behave when being deceptive. We demonstrate that when producing deceptive rather than honest responses, models exhibit a gap between their belief (how likely they think a claim is to be true) and their commitment (how firmly they assert and would defend that claim). LLMs produce persuasive deceptive claims while reporting low belief in their factual correctness. Their reported commitment to deceptive responses can easily be increased through further prompting and preference fine-tuning, with smaller and condition-dependent changes in reported belief. However, we show that low reported belief remains comparatively invariant and provides a strong signal for detecting deception in the evaluated settings. Using only an API call, our approach achieves detection scores of up to 0.99 for induced deception and 0.89 for emergent deception. This ultimately shows how confidence can be a practical tool for detecting and diagnosing deceptive behaviour in LLMs.