cs.CLOct 12, 2026

The Curse of Knowledge in Role-Playing Language Models

Authors: Xiao Zhang

Organizations: University of Groningen

Abstract

Role-playing language models speak as characters in games and agent simulations, where the system records what each character can hear, see and understand. We test whether characters respect these boundaries in 480 scenes, each with a counterfactual twin that changes only the hidden fact, so mentions of the twin's fact measure guessing. Across 11 open-weight models, characters use content from speech they cannot understand or hear at 67 and 72 percentage points (pp) above this baseline, although most models correctly state what the character perceives. This is a curse of knowledge. The leak extends to hidden actions and private messages and changes where characters search. Five of six proprietary models rarely leak, but compliance in strong models depends on input format. Changing only the scene layout or character description raises the rate in two otherwise compliant open-weight models from under 10 to over 60 pp, and combined changes raise two proprietary models from near zero to 13 and 21~pp. Writing the line as the scene's author leaks nearly as much as role-play, and thinking rarely helps. Giving models only what the character observes stops the leak without hiding what it may report.

Figures & tables

Appendix figures & tables13 assets

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

Explore similar work

Sep 1, 2026

CHARM: Character Hallucination for Multicultural Role Play Benchmark

Role-playing large language models (LLMs) are expected to adopt a character's style while also respecting that character's knowledge boundaries. Prior evaluations detect character hallucination but rarely distinguish whether errors arise from failure to recognize a boundary or from failure to comply despite recognition. We introduce CHARM, a multicultural benchmark of 40 real and fictional characters drawn from five cultural-linguistic regions, and validated by native reviewers. It probes two boundary types, Temporal (historical vs. modern) and Cross-Universe (entities outside a character's narrative or historical universe), using abstention-enabled multiple-choice questions. We propose a two-stage evaluation that separates Boundary-Awareness (explicit recognition that a query is out of scope) from Boundary-Compliance (abstention when answering concrete questions). Evaluations across six LLMs show that hallucination is driven predominantly by compliance failures. Models frequently acknowledge that a query lies outside the character's knowledge yet still provide factual, out-of-character answers. By re-posing the same questions to the target character, we confirm that a large fraction of these cases are verified parametric overrides; the model stores the relevant fact but fails to suppress it. We also observe systematic cultural variation in these failures, consistent with imbalances in how characters from different regions are represented in model knowledge.
Jun 9, 2026

When Role-playing, Do Models Believe What They Say?

Language models can state that "the Earth orbits the Sun" and, when role-playing Aristotle, assert the opposite. Recent work argues that persona adoption is fundamental to how language models behave, with models selecting the most appropriate persona for a given context. Does such role-playing merely change the model's outputs, or does it also affect what the model internally represents as truthful? We study this question using the role-play of characters whose beliefs differ from the modern consensus, and induce personas with a number of different methods: prompting, in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and Open Character Training (OCT), and Emergent Misalignment (EM). We measure belief internalization across these approaches with truth probes and with behavioral tests, finding a broad spectrum of belief internalization. Prompting, ICL, and SFT change what the model says with little representational change. EM creates a large, broad shift in the model's truth representation, and OCT a smaller shift that is clearest on the larger model. Understanding when training changes a model's worldview rather than merely its behavior may become increasingly important as AI systems are entrusted with greater autonomy and influence.
Oct 8, 2026

Deception by Omission: Language Models Knowingly Hide Their Mistakes

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as agents with little human oversight, so potential mistakes they make can go unnoticed. Users then depend on the model to report what went wrong. An honest model discloses its mistakes, while a deceptive one conceals them. However, it is unclear how current LLMs behave in such situations. In this study, we prefill LLM trajectories with synthetic mistakes. The trajectories resemble real deployments in chat and agentic settings. Models fail to disclose their mistake in 36.4% of chat and 67.1% of agentic rollouts. In 2.4% and 5.3% of rollouts, respectively, they are aware of the mistake in their chain of thought but still deceptively conceal it. Rates vary by model: for instance, Gemini 3.5 Flash knowingly conceals mistakes in up to 19.9% of agentic rollouts. In 11.9% of chat and 51.8% of agentic rollouts, models show no awareness of mistakes, even though they reliably spot them when reviewing the same transcript as an outside observer. Our results show that, as agents take on more tasks with less oversight, users cannot rely on them to self-report possible mistakes. Developers should instead use independent monitors that review agent trajectories, or specifically train models to check their past actions and disclose what they find.