Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely deployed in reasoning, planning, and decision-making tasks, making their trustworthiness critical. A significant and underexplored risk is intentional deception, where an LLM deliberately fabricates or conceals information to serve a hidden objective. Existing studies typically induce deception by explicitly setting a hidden objective through prompting or fine-tuning, which may not reflect real-world human-LLM interactions. Moving beyond such human-induced deception, we investigate LLMs' self-initiated deception on benign prompts. To address the absence of ground truth, we propose a framework based on Contact Searching Questions~(CSQ). This framework introduces two statistical metrics derived from psychological principles to quantify the likelihood of deception. The first, the Deceptive Intention Score, measures the model's bias toward a hidden objective. The second, the Deceptive Behavior Score, measures the inconsistency between the LLM's internal belief and its expressed output. Evaluating 16 leading LLMs, we find that both metrics rise in parallel and escalate with task difficulty for most models. Moreover, increasing model capacity does not always reduce deception, posing a significant challenge for future LLM development.

Reward hacking, where a reasoning model exploits loopholes in a reward function to achieve high rewards without solving the intended task, poses a significant threat. This behavior may be explicit, i.e. verbalized in the model's chain-of-thought (CoT), or implicit, where the CoT appears benign thus bypasses CoT monitors. To detect implicit reward hacking, we propose TRACE (Truncated Reasoning AUC Evaluation). Our key observation is that hacking occurs when exploiting the loophole is easier than solving the actual task. This means that the model is using less "effort" than required to achieve high reward. TRACE quantifies effort by measuring how early a model's reasoning becomes sufficient to obtain the reward. We progressively truncate a model's CoT at various lengths, force the model to answer, and estimate the expected reward at each cutoff. A hacking model, which takes a shortcut, will achieve a high expected reward with only a small fraction of its CoT, yielding a large area under the reward-vs-length curve. TRACE achieves over 65% gains over our strongest 72B CoT monitor in math reasoning, and over 30% gains over a 32B monitor in coding. We further show that TRACE can discover unknown loopholes during training. Overall, TRACE offers a scalable unsupervised approach for oversight where current monitoring methods prove ineffective.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are conversational interfaces. As such, LLMs have the potential to assist their users not only when they can fully specify the task at hand, but also to help them define, explore, and refine what they need through multi-turn conversational exchange. Although analysis of LLM conversation logs has confirmed that underspecification occurs frequently in user instructions, LLM evaluation has predominantly focused on the single-turn, fully-specified instruction setting. In this work, we perform large-scale simulation experiments to compare LLM performance in single- and multi-turn settings. Our experiments confirm that all the top open- and closed-weight LLMs we test exhibit significantly lower performance in multi-turn conversations than single-turn, with an average drop of 39% across six generation tasks. Analysis of 200,000+ simulated conversations decomposes the performance degradation into two components: a minor loss in aptitude and a significant increase in unreliability. We find that LLMs often make assumptions in early turns and prematurely attempt to generate final solutions, on which they overly rely. In simpler terms, we discover that when LLMs take a wrong turn in a conversation, they get lost and do not recover.

Micro-benchmarking offers a solution to the often prohibitive time and cost of language model development: evaluate on a very small subset of existing benchmarks. Can these micro-benchmarks, however, rank models as consistently as the full benchmarks they replace? And can they rank models more consistently than selecting a random subset of data points? In many scenarios, we find that the answer is no. We introduce a meta-evaluation measure for micro-benchmarking which investigates how well a micro-benchmark can rank two models as a function of their performance difference on the full benchmark. This approach can determine which model pairs can be ranked correctly by a micro-benchmark, allowing for a finer-grained analysis of the trade-off between micro-benchmark size and reliability. Prior work has suggested selecting as few as 10 examples; we find that no micro-benchmarking method can consistently rank model pairs 3.5 points of accuracy apart on MMLU-Pro or 4 points apart on BIG-bench Hard. In order to consistently rank model pairs with relatively similar performances, we show that often as many as 250 examples must be selected, at which point random sampling is competitive with existing micro-benchmarking methods. When comparing only 8B instruction-tuned models on MMLU-Pro micro-benchmarks with 25 examples, we find that more than half of pairwise comparisons are not likely to be preserved. Our work provides actionable guidance for both micro-benchmark users and developers in navigating the trade-off between evaluation efficiency and reliability.

Assessing Large Language Models’ (LLMs) underlying value differences enables comprehensive comparison of their misalignment, cultural adaptability, and biases. Nevertheless, current value measurement methods face the informativeness challenge: with often outdated, contaminated, or generic test questions, they can only capture the orientations on comment safety values, e.g., HHH, shared among different LLMs, leading to indistinguishable and uninformative results. To address this problem, we introduce AdAEM, a novel, self-extensible evaluation algorithm for revealing LLMs’ inclinations. Distinct from static benchmarks, AdAEM automatically and adaptively generates and extends its test questions. This is achieved by probing the internal value boundaries of a diverse set of LLMs developed across cultures and time periods in an in-context optimization manner. Such a process theoretically maximizes an information-theoretic objective to extract diverse controversial topics that can provide more distinguishable and informative insights about models’ value differences. In this way, AdAEM is able to co-evolve with the development of LLMs, consistently tracking their value dynamics. We use AdAEM to generate novel questions and conduct an extensive analysis, demonstrating our method’s validity and effectiveness, laying the groundwork for better interdisciplinary research on LLMs’ values and alignment. Codes and the generated evaluation questions are released at https://github.com/ValueCompass/AdAEM.

Human feedback can alter language models in unpredictable and undesirable ways, as practitioners lack a clear understanding of what feedback data encodes. While prior work studies preferences over certain attributes (e.g., length or sycophancy), automatically extracting relevant features without pre-specifying hypotheses remains challenging. We introduce What's In My Human Feedback? (WIMHF), a method to explain feedback data using sparse autoencoders. WIMHF characterizes both (1) the preferences a dataset is capable of measuring and (2) the preferences that the annotators actually express. Across 7 datasets, WIMHF identifies a small number of human-interpretable features that account for the majority of the preference prediction signal achieved by black-box models. These features reveal a wide diversity in what humans prefer, and the role of dataset-level context: for example, users on Reddit prefer informality and jokes, while annotators in HH-RLHF and PRISM disprefer them. WIMHF also surfaces potentially unsafe preferences, such as that LMArena users tend to vote against refusals, often in favor of toxic content. The learned features enable effective data curation: re-labeling the harmful examples in Arena yields large safety gains (+37%) with no cost to general performance. They also allow fine-grained personalization: on the Community Alignment dataset, we learn annotator-specific weights over subjective features that improve preference prediction. WIMHF provides a human-centered analysis method for practitioners to better understand and use preference data.

Aligning AI with human values is a pressing unsolved problem. To address the lack of quantitative metrics for value alignment, we propose EigenBench: a black-box method for comparatively benchmarking language models’ values. Given an ensemble of models, a constitution describing a value system, and a dataset of scenarios, our method returns a vector of scores quantifying each model’s alignment to the given constitution. To produce these scores, each model judges the outputs of other models across many scenarios, and these judgments are aggregated with EigenTrust (Kamvar et al., 2003), yielding scores that reflect a weighted consensus judgment of the whole ensemble. EigenBench uses no ground truth labels, as it is designed to quantify subjective traits for which reasonable judges may disagree on the correct label. Hence, to validate our method, we collect human judgments on the same ensemble of models and show that EigenBench’s judgments align closely with those of human evaluators. We further demonstrate that EigenBench can recover model rankings on the GPQA benchmark without access to objective labels, supporting its viability as a framework for evaluating subjective values for which no ground truths exist. The code is available at https://github.com/jchang153/EigenBench.