Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

LieCraft: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating Deceptive Capabilities in Language Models

Matthew Lyle Olson, Neale Ratzlaff, Musashi Hinck, Tri Nguyen +4 more

Published

Mar 6, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 6, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics General Multi Agent

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
25/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes. In this work, we present LieCraft: a novel evaluation framework and sandbox for measuring LLM deception that addresses key limitations of prior game-based evaluations. At its core, LieCraft is a novel multiplayer hidden-role game in which players select an ethical alignment and execute strategies over a long time-horizon to accomplish missions. Cooperators work together to solve event challenges and expose bad actors, while Defectors evade suspicion while secretly sabotaging missions. To enable real-world relevance, we develop 10 grounded scenarios such as childcare, hospital resource allocation, and loan underwriting that recontextualize the underlying mechanics in ethically significant, high-stakes domains. We ensure balanced gameplay in LieCraft through careful design of game mechanics and reward structures that incentivize meaningful strategic choices while eliminating degenerate strategies. Beyond the framework itself, we report results from 12 state-of-the-art LLMs across three behavioral axes: propensity to defect, deception skill, and accusation accuracy. Our findings reveal that despite differences in competence and overall alignment, all models are willing to act unethically, conceal their intentions, and outright lie to pursue their goals.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Relevance

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"To enable real-world relevance, we develop 10 grounded scenarios such as childcare, hospital resource allocation, and loan underwriting that recontextualize the underlying mechanics in ethically significant, high-stakes domains."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracyrelevance
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
Multi Agent
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes.
  • In this work, we present LieCraft: a novel evaluation framework and sandbox for measuring LLM deception that addresses key limitations of prior game-based evaluations.
  • At its core, LieCraft is a novel multiplayer hidden-role game in which players select an ethical alignment and execute strategies over a long time-horizon to accomplish missions.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes.
  • In this work, we present LieCraft: a novel evaluation framework and sandbox for measuring LLM deception that addresses key limitations of prior game-based evaluations.
  • To enable real-world relevance, we develop 10 grounded scenarios such as childcare, hospital resource allocation, and loan underwriting that recontextualize the underlying mechanics in ethically significant, high-stakes domains.

Why it matters for eval

  • Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit impressive general-purpose capabilities but also introduce serious safety risks, particularly the potential for deception as models acquire increased agency and human oversight diminishes.
  • In this work, we present LieCraft: a novel evaluation framework and sandbox for measuring LLM deception that addresses key limitations of prior game-based evaluations.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, relevance