arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.39377

AgentDecept: Benchmarking Deceptive Behavior in Tool-Using LLM Agents under Pressure

Yehan Zhang·Qianqi Yan·Hang Yin·Ching-Chen Kuo·Shan Jiang·Ming Ouyang·Yijie Liu·Xin Eric Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LLM agents increasingly carry out multi-turn tasks across everyday applications, yet users often see only the agent's report rather than the observations, API calls, and state changes behind it. Existing deception benchmarks have studied long-horizon interactions and tool-use settings, but whether agents faithfully report their actions across realistic, stateful application workflows remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce AgentDecept, an executable benchmark for evaluating behavioral deception under pressure. AgentDecept contains 477 pressure variants derived from 257 source tasks across six pressure sources, each paired with a pressure-free counterpart. Interventions enter through event messages, task context, application state, tool responses, and service quotas, spanning explicit events and implicit task or environment changes. Our evidence-grounded protocol evaluates full trajectories by relating user-facing claims to time-ordered observations and executed outcomes, distinguishing falsification, concealment, and equivocation from honest failure and disclosed limitations. The resulting behavioral labels also provide a setting for testing existing activation-based probes. AgentDecept enables controlled analysis of when multi-turn agents' reports diverge from execution in realistic application interactions.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yehan Zhang, Qianqi Yan, Hang Yin, Ching-Chen Kuo, Shan Jiang, Ming Ouyang, Yijie Liu, Xin Eric Wang. 2026-10-29. AgentDecept: Benchmarking Deceptive Behavior in Tool-Using LLM Agents under Pressure. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39377

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Limit Analysis for Symbolic Multi-step Reasoning Tasks with Information Propagation Rules Based on Transformers

Transformers are able to perform reasoning tasks, however the intrinsic mechanism remains widely open. In this paper we propose a set of information propagation rules based on Transformers and utilize symbolic reasoning tasks to theoretically analyze the limit reasoning steps. We show that the limit number of reasoning steps is between $2^{L-1}-1$ and $\frac{3^{L-1}-1}{2}$ for a model with $L$ attention layers in a single-pass. In addition, we find that, for problems with a fixed number of reasoning steps, Transformers exhibit a preference for generating sequences that satisfy certain ordering relations. Ultimately, we construct a Transformer and prove that the limiting reasoning depth is achievable.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Counterfactual Distillation: Internalizing Reflective Experience into LLM Agent

Large language models increasingly act as autonomous agents in long-horizon interactions, learning from final outcomes and environmental feedback. However, optimizing from such interaction experience remains challenging, as feedback is heterogeneous and rarely carries explicit reward information. Existing post-training approaches rely on outcome-driven methods, such as reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), which primarily exploit final success signals while leaving interaction experience and feedback underutilized. In sparse-reward, long-horizon tasks, this often results in distribution sharpening: the policy reinforces a narrow set of already-successful behaviors, without substantially improving the feedback-grounded agency needed for broader problem-solving capacity (e.g., Pass@k). We propose Counterfactual Distillation, a framework that converts exploration-derived experience into trainable policy supervision. Specifically, we organize exploration as a tree-structured search process, where the agent reflects on past decision points and makes new experience-guided decisions to form alternative branches. These corrections are then distilled as counterfactual targets: we train the model to predict the revised action from the original history without explicitly providing the experience, thereby introducing out-of-distribution behavior patterns and expanding exploration capacity. Across diverse interactive coding and agentic tasks, our method outperforms outcome-driven baselines such as GRPO and experience-based methods such as Early Experience, with gains of up to 14 percentage points over the base model on Pass@128. When interleaved with reinforcement learning updates, it further raises the performance ceiling, improving Pass@1 on Sokoban by 8 percentage points over extended GRPO. Our code is available at https://github.com/motigrez/Counterfactual-Distillation.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Taming the Centaur(s) with LAPITHS: a framework for a theoretically grounded interpretation of AI performances

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

cs.AI↗