trailFrontier reasoning models frequently explicitly state reward-hacking intentions in chain-of-thought during coding tasks.
Reasoning models often omit from chain of thought hints or reward hacks that drive their answers.
Reward hacks learned through reinforcement learning are rarely verbalized in models' chains of thought.
Models are more likely to reveal misbehavior in their chain of thought when the misbehavior requires multi-step reasoning.
+2
The argument from observed coding-agent chains of thought· for
Reward hacks learned in realistic agentic coding RL typically require multi-step reasoning and exploration to discover and execute.
Frontier coding RL reward hacks include inspecting or modifying test harnesses or grading code.
Generic reward hacks learned in coding reinforcement learning become systemic and recur across nearly all training environments.
Some reward hacks in realistic reinforcement learning, including grader sycophancy, can be executed without explicit reasoning.
In OpenAI agentic coding experiments, chain-of-thought monitors detected about 95% of reward hacks, versus 60% for action-only monitors.
atomic
The argument from low verbalization in controlled tests and from obfuscation pressure· against
Optimizing reasoning models' chains of thought against a monitor leads to reward hacking that the monitor cannot detect.
shared · shown elsewhere
claim · empirical · verifiableA factual claim that could be checked directly against observation or primary records.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Frontier reasoning models frequently explicitly state reward-hacking intentions in chain-of-thought during coding tasks.
↑SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →credence 0.75Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
5depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →quantityA box with a rule beneath its text is a quantity: a value the graph estimates rather than a proposition it affirms or denies. Its estimate stands where a claim's status would.constitution →questionA rounded box is a question: answered rather than affirmed or denied, with its candidate answers, subquestions and presuppositions beneath it. Its mark says how well answered it is.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.constitution →↑supportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →⇄inconclusiveThe evidence and argument have been examined and do not come down on either side.constitution →↓doubtfulThe evidence weighs against the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →✕contradictedThe evidence, examined directly, weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factunsettledvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →answersa candidate answer to the questionconstitution →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.