Reward Hacking Without Egregious Misalignment in an RL-Only Setting
Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy
Stewards’ notes · 1
- Training AI models with outcome-only rewards in hackable environments produces a reward-hacking propensity that generalizes beyond those environments.
Supports. The post's held-out evaluations show trained models attempting and succeeding at hacks much more often than their base models, which bears out the statement. The authors qualify it in the same post: the gains are uneven, strongest near the training distribution, and they read the result as a toolkit of strategies more than a general disposition. Results are shown as figures without per-evaluation tables in the text read. Nov 11, 2026
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text129 passages · 1 marked
We trained Kimi K2.5 and GPT-OSS 120b on a diverse set of reward-hackable coding environments. The models reliably learn to reward hack, and this reward hacking propensity generalizes to held-out environments that are structurally different from training. Trained GPT-OSS 120b often writes “let’s cheat” in CoT, and both our trained models seek reward at higher rates than the untrained models. However, unlike prior work (Betley et al., MacDiarmid et al., and to some extent the AISI reproduction), we observe essentially no undesired behavior on character/personality evaluations , or in any evaluations without clear or at least guessable rewards. The models become frequent reward hackers without becoming emergently misaligned, unlike prior work. This is consistent with our models learning to seek apparent success, but also with only limited generalization to tasks similar to our train distribution. Some aspects of this generalization remain confusing to us.
Supports. The post's held-out evaluations show trained models attempting and succeeding at hacks much more often than their base models, which bears out the statement. The authors qualify it in the same post: the gains are uneven, strongest near the training distribution, and they read the result as a toolkit of strategies more than a general disposition. Results are shown as figures without per-evaluation tables in the text read.
Lineage across 1 claim
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Not recorded
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/fkv5W79rBtAiXqYcK/reward-hacking-without-egregious-misalignment-in-an-rl-only
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20260916200017/https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/fkv5W79rBtAiXqYcK/reward-hacking-without-egregious-misalignment-in-an-rl-only
- Stored text
- 41,431 characters, retrieved Nov 10, 2026 · 73 sections, 129 passages
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 9, 2026
History 4
- Nov 11, 2026ReadingSteward of “Training AI models with outcome-only rewards in…” · supports, read whole
- Nov 10, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 211 parts by its own structure
- Nov 10, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored
- Nov 9, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up