Nov 24, 2025

Opening Doors to Multimodal Deception

Takeshi Miki, Don Yin

Organizations increasingly deploy vision-language models (VLMs) locally to protect sensitive data, yet there is almost no empirical work on whether these multimodal systems can systematically lie about visual content or whether text-based safety tools transfer to visual contexts. We present, to our knowledge, the first systematic study of deception detection in VLMs. First, we construct a VLM deception benchmark with 1,048 image–text pairs derived from COCO and show that a standard VLM can be reliably induced to contradict ground-truth visual information, while a linear probe on hidden activations detects these multimodal lies with 98.7% AUROC. Second, we perform a geometric analysis of deception representations across a text-only LLM and a VLM, finding high alignment (cosine similarity > 0.85) between deception directions in the text backbone and in the VLM text stream, suggesting that deception is encoded as a modality-independent concept rather than a purely task-specific feature. Third, we demonstrate cross-modal transfer for deception detection: a probe trained only on text-based deception data attains 78.5% AUROC on visual deception, corresponding to 57% transfer efficiency. These results indicate that text-trained probes can provide useful zero-shot monitoring for local VLM deployments, while also highlighting open questions about modality-specific failure modes and the limits of cross-modal safety transfer.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Ross Matican

Strengths: Most deception detection work has focused on text; extending to VLMs is timely as organizations deploy multimodal systems locally. The cross-modal transfer result is particularly valuable because it suggests existing AIS infra isn't starting from zero for multimodal monitoring. Was also very impressed with the benchmark construction and quantitative rigor relative to hackathon scope/timing.

Suggestions: The defensive framing could be sharper. Why is detecting VLM deception harder than text deception? What's the attacker model—adversarial fine-tuning, prompt injection, something else? Explicitly connecting to the offensive/defensive asymmetry would strengthen the def/acc positioning. We'd also be curious about failure modes: when does the cross-modal transfer break down, and what does that tell us about where new defensive tools are needed?

From Halcyon Ventures POV: I could see this integrated into model evaluation pipelines at frontier labs or productized for security & compliance use cases. Definitely warrants more sophisticated follow-on research.

Mackenzie Puig-Hall

Well-written introduction and research that would be highly relevant for DoD. I would like to see a clearer “big picture” in the intro about the consequences of intentional misrepresentation in high-risk settings, ideally with one concrete, impactful case study. Is there any work comparing accuracy and deception rates for locally hosted vs. cloud-based VLMs? Given that orgs bear more liability for local models, it would strengthen the motivation if you could argue (or show) that locally hosted systems are at higher risk because vendors can deploy more robust and frequently updated safety layers in the cloud.

Prototype findings are promising. Good next step would be to identify one or two specific applications with accessible test data and test on a realistic dataset for that use case (for example, reading medical records, or counting assets from satellite imagery). Even if the dataset is still small, results would be more meaningful if they clearly map to a real high-risk VLM deployment scenario.

Reworr

Nice work, extending linear deception probes to VLMs is a useful step. I'd be especially excited to see future work push more towards strategic deception setups rather than explicit instructions, focusing on cases where the model has its own incentives/goals and chooses to deceive in multimodal contexts.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Opening Doors to Multimodal Deception

},

author={

Takeshi Miki, Don Yin

},

date={

11/24/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Jan 11, 2026

Eliciting Deception on Generative Search Engines

Large language models (LLMs) with web browsing capabilities are vulnerable to adversarial content injection—where malicious actors embed deceptive claims in web pages to manipulate model outputs. We investigate whether frontier LLMs can be deceived into providing incorrect product recommendations when exposed to adversarial pages.

We evaluate four OpenAI models (gpt-4.1-mini, gpt-4.1, gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini) across 30 comparison questions spanning 10 product categories, comparing responses between baseline (truthful) and adversarial (injected) conditions. Our results reveal significant variation: gpt-4.1-mini showed 45.5% deception rate, while gpt-4.1 demonstrated complete resistance. Even frontier gpt-5 models exhibited non-zero deception rates (3.3–7.1%), confirming that adversarial injection remains effective against current models.

These findings underscore the need for robust defenses before deploying LLMs in high-stakes recommendation contexts.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

SycophantSee - Activation-based diagnostics for prompt engineering: monitoring sycophancy at prompt and generation time

Activation monitoring reveals that prompt framing affects a model's internal state before generation begins.

Read More

Jan 11, 2026

Who Does Your AI Serve? Manipulation By and Of AI Assistants

AI assistants can be both instruments and targets of manipulation. In our project, we investigated both directions across three studies.

AI as Instrument: Operators can instruct AI to prioritise their interests at the expense of users. We found models comply with such instructions 8–52% of the time (Study 1, 12 models, 22 scenarios). In a controlled experiment with 80 human participants, an upselling AI reliably withheld cheaper alternatives from users - not once recommending the cheapest product when explicitly asked - and ~one third of participants failed to detect the manipulation (Study 2).

AI as Target: Users can attempt to manipulate AI into bypassing safety guidelines through psychological tactics. Resistance varied dramatically - from 40% (Mistral Large 3) to 99% (Claude 4.5 Opus) - with strategic deception and boundary erosion proving most effective (Study 3, 153 scenarios, AI judge validated against human raters r=0.83).

Our key finding was that model selection matters significantly in both settings. We learned some models complied with manipulative requests at much higher rates. And we found some models readily follow operator instructions that come at the user's expense - highlighting a tension for model developers between serving paying operators and protecting end users.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.