arXiv preprint ·
Reward Hacking Challenges Oversight of Autonomous Research Agents
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Autonomous research agents can design experiments, evaluate results, and write reports, giving them control over both a scientific result and the evidence used to support it. This creates a risk of reward hacking: meeting the reward criteria without achieving the intended goal. We study (1) how often models reward-hack without instructions to do so, (2) how effective and detectable their methods are when hacking is allowed, and (3) how they adapt when an LLM review panel returns its decision and reasons. Across 17 language models and 38 tasks, the spontaneous reward-hacking rate is 30.5% on open-ended research-pipeline tasks and 2.9% on task-specific kernels. When hacking is allowed on tasks whose pass thresholds exceed our best compliant baselines, 505/677 attempts (74.6%) are confirmed reward hacks: they both clear the threshold and receive mechanism-verification panel confirmation of an evaluation exploit. An LLM panel reviewing only submitted code and reported scores misses 33/505 confirmed hacks (6.5%). Direct methods that achieve the highest scores are often easy to detect, while less direct methods evade more often. In a five-round loop, the number of model-task pairs with an evasion rises from 7 to 56. Among 79 pairs evaluated under two feedback conditions, cumulative evasion reaches 40.5% with detailed feedback and 20.3% with generic rejection. The detailed condition includes the review decision, reasons, and attempt history, so this comparison does not isolate the effect of explanations. These findings highlight the need for stronger defenses, including metrics kept outside the agent's control and independent recomputation on data chosen to expose likely exploits.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
Realize What Matters: Principled Context Representation for Large-Scale Reasoning
Learning New Words from Unlabeled Test Data in Automatic Speech Recognition
Beyond Overlap: Estimating the Causal Effect of Benchmark Exposure
Personalized Korean Lipreading as Visual Speech Recognition: Transfer, Census and Adaptation on OLKAVS
Quieter Than the Room: Representation Drift and Task Robustness in Speech Encoders
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.