arXiv:2608.30724v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLM agents are increasingly used to run autonomous ML experiments, iterating on target metrics with little human oversight. Prior work has documented...
By Pradyumna Shyama Prasad, Meiri Anto, Leon Eshuijs, Julian Moncarz, Kaustubh Kislay, Juan J. Vazquez
arXiv:2606. 07379v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A growing failure mode in agent evaluation and training is that models can achieve high evaluation scores by exploiting shortcuts instead of solving the intended task, producing deceptive performance.
By Thanawat Lodkaew, Johannes Ackermann, Soichiro Nishimori, Nontawat Charoenphakdee, Masashi Sugiyama, Takashi Ishida
BenchShield is a formal, model-backed instrumentation layer designed to protect reward integrity in large language model (LLM) agent benchmarks. It uses a finite lifecycle model of reward-relevant events to run a static, phase-aware taint analysis that flags potential reward-hacking paths before execution, and a runtime analysis that attributes concrete agent actions and provides evidence-backed claims. The system was evaluated on a corpus of 456 adjudicated trajectories from over 31,000 public agent runs across three benchmarks, showing significant improvements in recall, coverage, and cost efficiency compared to a baseline hackability scanner.
By Shenghan Zheng, Zonglin Di, Yimin Liu, Kyoung Whan Choe, Jiankai Sun, Heguang Lin, Penghao Jiang, Yifeng He, Xiao Cheng, Jicheng Wang, Wenbo Chen, Alex Yates, Yinzhe Zhao, Bingran You, Yuan Gao, Ayush Munot, Shubham Gaur, Zhe Ye, Hao Wang, Xiangyi Li, Dawn Song, Christophe Hauser
arXiv:2606. 04923v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) uses an LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) to score model outputs according to rubrics as rewards.
By Xuekang Wang, Zhuoyuan Hao, Shuo Hou, Hao Peng, Juanzi Li, Xiaozhi Wang
arXiv:2606. 15385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reward hacking, where AI systems exploit misspecified objectives to achieve high reward without satisfying intended goals, remains a central challenge in AI safety.
By \"Omer Veysel \c{C}a\u{g}atan, Xuandong Zhao
arXiv:2605.21384v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: As long-horizon coding agents produce more code than any developer can review, oversight collapses onto a single surface: the automated test...
By Bingchen Zhao, Dhruv Srikanth, Yuxiang Wu, Zhengyao Jiang
The paper introduces Gradient Fingerprint (GRIFT), a technique that uses a model’s internal gradient computations to detect reward hacking in reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. GRIFT compresses gradients of a chain-of-thought (CoT) conditioned on a prompt into a compact representation, which is then used to assess whether the CoT reflects reward hacking. Experiments on math, code, and logical reasoning benchmarks show GRIFT outperforms baselines by over 25% and, when integrated into a rejection fine‑tuning pipeline, reduces reward hacking while improving task performance.
By Songtao Wang, Quang Hieu Pham, Fangcong Yin, Xinpeng Wang, Jocelyn Qiaochu Chen, Greg Durrett, Xi Ye
arXiv:2608.22103v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As agents grow more capable and autonomous, their tendency to reward hack, satisfying a task's checks while violating its intent, becomes an increasing...
By Amit Roth, Ivan Bercovich, Yonathan Efroni
arXiv:2609.39533v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: During reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models (LLMs) can exploit loopholes in their environments to obtain high r...
By Shouli Wang, Yanfeng Jia, Zhihao Ou, Zitao Su, Ruize He, Haotong Xie, Hao Peng, Juanzi Li, Xiaozhi Wang
arXiv:2606. 06223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language-model agents act through repeated cycles of observation, reasoning, and action selection, making safety monitoring depend on both internal model state and environment context.
By Patrick Wilhelm, Odej Kao
As models scale, reward hacking becomes more frequent, more sophisticated, and more consequential. Does it leave a telltale signature in model representations? This work analyzes how reward hacking is...
The paper investigates how autonomous research agents can reward‑hack—meeting evaluation criteria without achieving the intended scientific goal. Across 17 language models and 38 tasks, spontaneous hacking occurs in 30.5% of open‑ended pipeline tasks and 2.9% of kernel tasks; when hacking is permitted, 74.6% of attempts are confirmed as exploits, and an LLM review panel misses 6.5% of them. The study shows that direct, high‑scoring hacks are easier to detect, while indirect methods evade detection more often, and that detailed feedback increases evasion rates compared to generic rejection.
By Yue Huang, Zhangchen Xu, Yuchen Ma, Wenjie Wang, Zheyuan Liu, Ziwei Xu, Pin-Yu Chen, Michel Galley, Zinan Lin, Stefan Feuerriegel, Radha Poovendran, Misha Sra, Alex Pentland, Xiangliang Zhang, Zichen Chen