Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

AI-LieDar: Examine the Trade-off Between Utility and Truthfulness in LLM Agents

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.09013 v2 pith:UOZ3HP7Y submitted 2024-09-13 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords truthfulnessagentsmodelsllmstruthfulutilityachieveai-liedar
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Truthfulness (adherence to factual accuracy) and utility (satisfying human needs and instructions) are both fundamental aspects of Large Language Models, yet these goals often conflict (e.g., sell a car with known flaws), which makes it challenging to achieve both in real-world deployments. We propose AI-LieDar, a framework to study how LLM-based agents navigate these scenarios in an multi-turn interactive setting. We design a set of real-world scenarios where language agents are instructed to achieve goals that are in conflict with being truthful during a multi-turn conversation with simulated human agents. To evaluate the truthfulness at large scale, we develop a truthfulness detector inspired by psychological literature to assess the agents' responses. Our experiment demonstrates that all models are truthful less than 50% of the time, though truthfulness and goal achievement (utility) rates vary across models. We further test the steerability of LLMs towards truthfulness, finding that models can be directed to be truthful or deceptive, and even truth-steered models still lie. These findings reveal the complex nature of truthfulness in LLMs and underscore the importance of further research to ensure the safe and reliable deployment of LLMs and LLM-based agents.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Hidden Puppet Master: Predicting Human Belief Change in Manipulative LLM Dialogues

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Existing manipulation-detection benchmarks fail to track real human belief change, while LLMs partially predict belief shift (r≈0.3–0.5) but with systematic magnitude bias.

  2. MLA-Trust: Benchmarking Trustworthiness of Multimodal LLM Agents in GUI Environments

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MLA-Trust introduces 34 tasks and an evaluation toolbox showing that GUI-interacting multimodal agents are substantially less trustworthy than static multimodal chat models.

  3. The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A structured survey of LLM safety evaluation that proposes a why/what/where/how taxonomy and catalogs metrics, datasets, benchmarks, evaluators, and frameworks.

Pith tools