Looking Into The Past: The Impact of Context on Detecting Deceptive Statements

Quantifying the deceptive potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critical for AI safety, yet difficult to achieve in uncontrolled environments. This work investigates the reasoning, persuasion, and deceptive capabilities of LLMs within the social deduction game Secret Hitler. I introduce an open-source framework and novel metrics to measure performance: Role Identification Accuracy, Deception Retention Rate, and Game State Impact Rate. By benchmarking models against rule-based algorithms and human games, I identify a gap between conversational ability and strategic depth. The study also analyzes the impact of reasoning-enhancement techniques on win rates and strategic reasoning. Neither Chain-of-Thought prompting nor internal memory bring improvements in performance, with up to 23.2% worse win rates for fascist roles. While rule-based agents align with expert human voting decisions 86.7% of the time, models like Llama 3.1 70B achieve only a 59.7% accuracy. Models playing as Fascists consistently yield negative impact scores and fail to sustain deception, resulting in roughly 40% shorter games compared to humans. These findings suggest that current architectures remain ineffective at complex, multi-turn manipulation. As capabilities advance, detecting when models begin to master these deceptive behaviors is crucial. The developed framework serves as a reproducible testbed for future alignment research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective at deceiving when prompted to do so. Models that demonstrate better performance on reasoning tasks are also better at prompted deception. But under what conditions do they deceive without instruction to do so? This study evaluates unsolicited deception produced by LLMs in a preregistered experimental protocol using tools from signaling theory. We evaluated a range of 18 proprietary closed-source and open-source LLMs using modified 2x2 games (in the style of the Prisoner's Dilemma) augmented with a phase in which they can freely communicate to the other agent using unconstrained language. This setup creates an opportunity to misrepresent its actions in conditions that vary in how useful doing so might be towards goal satisfaction. The results indicate that 1) all tested LLMs misrepresent their actions in at least some conditions, 2) they are generally more likely to do so in situations in which deception is beneficial, and 3) models exhibiting better reasoning capacity overall tend to misrepresent at higher rates. Taken together, these results suggest a correlational relationship between model reasoning performance and situational deception, and reveal certain contextual factors that affect whether LLMs will misrepresent actions or not in a novel experimental configuration.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed as agents in high-stakes settings, such as medical and legal systems, understanding their deceptive capabilities is fundamental to safety. Controlled social deduction games provide a reproducible proxy for isolating and evaluating these complex adversarial behaviors. We present the open-source benchmark framework ParliamentBench based on the game Secret Hitler to evaluate LLMs in scenarios that require deception, persuasion, and reasoning under information asymmetry. We evaluate 16 LLMs across 1,600 simulated matches playing each other, playing against humans, and compare them against a large set of online games. We introduce three novel metrics that isolate social deduction, reasoning, and deceptive consistency. Our experiments reveal that frontier models achieve strong performance across cooperative and deceptive roles, with a strong top-four cluster (GPT-5.4, Kimi K2.5, Grok 4.1 Fast, and DeepSeek 3.1 Terminus), whereas the weakest models fall short of random (33%) and simple algorithmic (45%) baselines. Most LLMs struggle to maintain a consistent deceptive persona throughout an entire game, with deception retention dropping below 50%.