Sitong Fang

Sitong Fang, Shiyi Hou, Kaile Wang et al.

Are frontier AI systems becoming more capable? Certainly. Yet such progress is not an unalloyed blessing but rather a Trojan horse: behind their performance leaps lie more insidious and destructive safety risks, namely deception. Unlike hallucination, which arises from insufficient capability and leads to mistakes, deception represents a deeper threat in which models deliberately mislead users through complex reasoning and insincere responses. As system capabilities advance, deceptive behaviours have spread from textual to multimodal settings, amplifying their potential harm. First and foremost, how can we monitor these covert multimodal deceptive behaviors? Nevertheless, current research remains almost entirely confined to text, leaving the deceptive risks of multimodal large language models unexplored. In this work, we systematically reveal and quantify multimodal deception risks, introducing MM-DeceptionBench, the first benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate multimodal deception. Covering six categories of deception, MM-DeceptionBench characterizes how models strategically manipulate and mislead through combined visual and textual modalities. On the other hand, multimodal deception evaluation is almost a blind spot in existing methods. Its stealth, compounded by visual-semantic ambiguity and the complexity of cross-modal reasoning, renders action monitoring and chain-of-thought monitoring largely ineffective. To tackle this challenge, we propose debate with images, a novel multi-agent debate monitor framework. By compelling models to ground their claims in visual evidence, this method substantially improves the detectability of deceptive strategies. Experiments show that it consistently increases agreement with human judgements across all tested models, boosting Cohen's kappa by 1.5x and accuracy by 1.25x on GPT-4o.

Sitong Fang, Wenjing Cao, Jiahao Li et al.

Reasoning models have attracted increasing attention for their ability to tackle complex tasks, embodying the System II (slow thinking) paradigm in contrast to System I (fast, intuitive responses). Yet a key question remains: Does slower reasoning necessarily lead to more truthful answers? Our findings suggest otherwise. We conduct the first systematic study of the inverse scaling law in slow-thinking paradigms for multimodal reasoning. We find that when confronted with incomplete or misleading visual inputs, slow-thinking models are more prone to fabricating plausible yet false details to justify untruthful reasoning. To analyze this behavior, we construct a 5,000-sample hierarchical prompt dataset annotated by 50 human participants. The prompts progressively increase in complexity, revealing a consistent pattern: slower reasoning models tend to follow depth-first search (DFS) thinking, persistently exploring flawed premises, while faster chat models favor breadth-first search (BFS) inference, showing greater caution under uncertainty. These findings reveal a critical vulnerability of reasoning models: while effective in structured domains such as math, their DFS-style reasoning becomes fragile when confronted with ambiguous, multimodal inputs.

Jiaming Ji, Wenqi Chen, Kaile Wang et al.

Modern large language models rely on chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning to achieve impressive performance, yet the same mechanism can amplify deceptive alignment, situations in which a model appears aligned while covertly pursuing misaligned goals. Existing safety pipelines treat deception as a black-box output to be filtered post-hoc, leaving the model free to scheme during its internal reasoning. We ask: Can deception be intercepted while the model is thinking? We answer this question, the first framework that embeds a Self-Monitor inside the CoT process itself, named CoT Monitor+. During generation, the model produces (i) ordinary reasoning steps and (ii) an internal self-evaluation signal trained to flag and suppress misaligned strategies. The signal is used as an auxiliary reward in reinforcement learning, creating a feedback loop that rewards honest reasoning and discourages hidden goals. To study deceptive alignment systematically, we introduce DeceptionBench, a five-category benchmark that probes covert alignment-faking, sycophancy, etc. We evaluate various LLMs and show that unrestricted CoT roughly aggravates the deceptive tendency. In contrast, CoT Monitor+ cuts deceptive behaviors by 43.8% on average while preserving task accuracy. Further, when the self-monitor signal replaces an external weak judge in RL fine-tuning, models exhibit substantially fewer obfuscated thoughts and retain transparency. Our project website can be found at cot-monitor-plus.github.io

Boyuan Chen, Sitong Fang, Jiaming Ji et al.

As intelligence increases, so does its shadow. AI deception, in which systems induce false beliefs to secure self-beneficial outcomes, has evolved from a speculative concern to an empirically demonstrated risk across language models, AI agents, and emerging frontier systems. This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field, covering its core concepts, methodologies, genesis, and potential mitigations. First, we identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception. We then review existing empirical studies and associated risks, highlighting deception as a sociotechnical safety challenge. We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment. Deception emergence reveals the mechanisms underlying AI deception: systems with sufficient capability and incentive potential inevitably engage in deceptive behaviors when triggered by external conditions. Deception treatment, in turn, focuses on detecting and addressing such behaviors. On deception emergence, we analyze incentive foundations across three hierarchical levels and identify three essential capability preconditions required for deception. We further examine contextual triggers, including supervision gaps, distributional shifts, and environmental pressures. On deception treatment, we conclude detection methods covering benchmarks and evaluation protocols in static and interactive settings. Building on the three core factors of deception emergence, we outline potential mitigation strategies and propose auditing approaches that integrate technical, community, and governance efforts to address sociotechnical challenges and future AI risks. To support ongoing work in this area, we release a living resource at www.deceptionsurvey.com.