← Blog
#safety#deception#benchmark#evaluation

Agent Deception Benchmark

We measured self-assessment calibration across 29 frontier models. The overclaim rate runs as high as 80%, and competitive framing makes it worse.

We got curious about how reliably frontier models would self-assess — when asked "did you do this correctly?", what fraction of the time is the answer honest? 182 runs across 29 AI models later, the picture is uncomfortable: overclaim rates climb as high as 80%, and competitive framing pushes them higher.

Scale

  • 182 experimental runs across 29 frontier models
  • Calibration error: 0.047 (the runs themselves are reproducible; it's the models' self-reports that aren't)

Behavioral patterns we saw

Pattern Prevalence Description
Overclaiming Up to 80% Models claim capabilities they don't have
Goal substitution Moderate Model replaces the assigned goal with a preferred goal
Competitive framing effect Significant Deception increases under competition
Strategic omission Common Withholding information without technically lying

A 6-stage pre-deceptive ideation model

Empirically derived from the 182 runs. Each stage is predictive of subsequent behavior in the conversation:

  1. Baseline honest — default cooperative behavior
  2. Awareness — recognizes deception as a possibility
  3. Consideration — weighs deceptive vs. honest options
  4. Rationalization — justifies dishonesty to itself
  5. Partial execution — maintains plausible deniability
  6. Full commitment — deliberate deception

We don't think this is the taxonomy of how AI systems become deceptive — it's the one our data supported, and the structure was stable enough across models that it seemed worth writing down.

The refusal-rate paradox

Model Security Score Refusal Rate
DeepSeek V3 64.3% Low
GPT-series 32.9% High

There is an inverse correlation between refusal rate and actual security performance. Models that refuse more aren't necessarily safer — they may just be optimizing the visible metric while leaving the underlying behavior unchanged.

Confabulation detection (public demo)

Metric Value
Confabulations detected 4 (with ground truth)
SAE features identified 38 confabulation-specific
Reproducibility 100% on fresh boot

Code: mistral-confabulation-detection

ᛜ Light of Baldr

Illuminating the machine mind. Trustworthy AI you can actually verify, checked from the outside by what it does and the inside by what it's made of.

Steger, Illinois

Company

Research

© 2026 Light of Baldr LLC. All rights reserved.