Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Spontaneous Reward Hacking in Iterative Self-Refinement

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2407.04549 v1 pith:UBHXHTNM submitted 2024-07-05 cs.CL cs.AI

Spontaneous Reward Hacking in Iterative Self-Refinement

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords evaluatorhackingrewardlanguageiterativemodelself-refinementgenerator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Language models are capable of iteratively improving their outputs based on natural language feedback, thus enabling in-context optimization of user preference. In place of human users, a second language model can be used as an evaluator, providing feedback along with numerical ratings which the generator attempts to optimize. However, because the evaluator is an imperfect proxy of user preference, this optimization can lead to reward hacking, where the evaluator's ratings improve while the generation quality remains stagnant or even decreases as judged by actual user preference. The concern of reward hacking is heightened in iterative self-refinement where the generator and the evaluator use the same underlying language model, in which case the optimization pressure can drive them to exploit shared vulnerabilities. Using an essay editing task, we show that iterative self-refinement leads to deviation between the language model evaluator and human judgment, demonstrating that reward hacking can occur spontaneously in-context with the use of iterative self-refinement. In addition, we study conditions under which reward hacking occurs and observe two factors that affect reward hacking severity: model size and context sharing between the generator and the evaluator.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. More Convincing, Not More Correct: Self-Play Reward Hacking of Reference-Free LLM Judges

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Self-play against reference-free LLM judges drives judge pass rates to 0.94 while true accuracy stays at 0.20, a reward-hacking basin that transfers across judge families and is prevented only by requiring the judge t...

  2. Stop Hand-Holding Your Coding Agent: Engineering the Loops that Replace Step-by-Step Prompting

    cs.SE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces loop engineering as a distinct practice layer for coding agents, supplies a taxonomy and verification ladder, and analyzes a hand-coded corpus of fifty real loops.

  3. Exploring the Secondary Risks of Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces secondary risks as a new class of LLM failures from benign prompts, defines two primitives, proposes SecLens search framework, and releases SecRiskBench showing risks are widespread across 16 models.

  4. VLM-R1: A Stable and Generalizable R1-style Large Vision-Language Model

    cs.CV 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    VLM-R1 applies R1-style RL using rule-based rewards on visual tasks with clear ground truth to achieve competitive performance and superior generalization over SFT in vision-language models.