Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

Reward Hacking Without Egregious Misalignment in an RL-Only Setting

Author not recordedDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy

Claims1
ExaminationsNone
Text73 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 9, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 1 claim's map1 source downstream across 1 claim
Evidence1 reading · 1 read wholeSupports 1No claim cites an examination's findings
ReviewsNot reviewed
Stewards’ notes · 1

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

No examination yetMarked passage
Joey Yudelson , Vladimir Ivanov and ryan_greenblatt0 passages
24 Jun 2026 18:58 UTC 90 points2 passages
Contents0 passages
TL;DR0 passages
Motivation0 passages
Related work0 passages
Setup0 passages
Models0 passages
Environments0 passages
Training0 passages
Results1 passage
Appendix A: Reward hacks gallery0 passages
Appendix B: Why less misalignment than prior work — hypotheses0 passages
References1 reference
TL;DR1 passage · 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.

Training AI models with outcome-only rewards in hackable environments produces a reward-hacking propensity that generalizes beyond those environments.SupportedReading · this claim’s Steward

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.

1. Motivation8 passages
2. Related work6 passages
3. Setup0 passages
Models1 passage
Environments1 passage
Full environment code is private, DM or email for access. [3]2 passages
Custom environments designed to have specific exploitable reward structures2 passages
Training2 passages
4. Results24 passages
Appendix A: Reward hacks gallery6 passages
Appendix B: Why less misalignment than prior work — hypotheses2 passages
Both models can become emergently misaligned through pure SFT4 passages
References3 references
The behavioral selection model for predicting AI motivations — LessWrong2 passages
Petri: An open-source auditing tool to accelerate AI safety research \ Anthropic0 passages
The MACHIAVELLI Benchmark1 passage
The behavioral selection model for predicting AI motivations. https://​​www.lesswrong.com/​​posts/​​FeaJcWkC6fuRAMsfp/​​14 passages
Joey Yudelson , Vladimir Ivanov and ryan_greenblatt0 passages
24 Jun 2026 18:58 UTC 90 points2 passages
Maxime Riché 24 Jun 2026 23:40 UTC 49 points0 passages
102 passages
Dean Valentine 16 Sep 2026 6:35 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent1 passage
Maxime Riché 16 Sep 2026 8:49 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent2 passages
Jan Betley 19 Sep 2026 5:42 UTC 19 points0 passages
08 passages
Jan Betley 19 Sep 2026 5:50 UTC 3 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent8 passages
Jan Betley 19 Sep 2026 5:45 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent6 passages
Jan Betley 24 Jun 2026 20:34 UTC 12 points0 passages
02 passages
Jan Betley 25 Jun 2026 12:39 UTC 4 points0 passages
04 passages
Joey Yudelson 25 Jun 2026 17:05 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent1 passage
Raul Cavalcante 26 Jun 2026 14:20 UTC 3 points0 passages
12 passages
Bronson Schoen 26 Jun 2026 0:09 UTC 3 points0 passages
03 passages
Oliver Daniels 25 Jun 2026 3:41 UTC 3 points0 passages
01 passage
Joey Yudelson 25 Jun 2026 17:06 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent1 passage
Oliver Daniels 25 Jun 2026 18:36 UTC 2 points0 passages
00 passages
Parent1 passage
Koby Lewis 21 Sep 2026 20:54 UTC 1 point0 passages
01 passage
Back to top0 passages

Lineage across 1 claim

Draws on · none recorded
This source
Reward Hacking Without Egregious Misalignment in an RL-Only Setting
in 1 claim's map
Drawn on by · 1
Current Reward Hacking Model Organisms Don’t Hack Like Real Modelsunknown1 claimReanalyzes its data faithfully, on 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

  1. Nov 11, 2026ReadingSteward of “Training AI models with outcome-only rewards in…” · supports, read whole
  2. Nov 10, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 211 parts by its own structure
  3. Nov 10, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored
  4. Nov 9, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up