Monitoring Emergent Reward Hacking During Generation via Internal Activations
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward hacking and misspecification
Abstract (arXiv)
Fine-tuned large language models can exhibit reward-hacking behavior arising from emergent misalignment, which is difficult to detect from final outputs alone. While prior work has studied reward hacking at the level of completed responses, it remains unclear whether such behavior can be identified during generation. We propose an activation-based monitoring approach that detects reward-hacking signals from internal representations as a model generates its response. Our method trains sparse autoencoders on residual stream activations and applies lightweight linear classifiers to produce token-level estimates of reward-hacking activity. Across multiple model families and fine-tuning mixtures, we find that internal activation patterns reliably distinguish reward-hacking from benign behavior, generalize to unseen mixed-policy adapters, and exhibit model-dependent temporal structure during chain-of-thought reasoning. Notably, reward-hacking signals often emerge early, persist throughout reasoning, and can be amplified by increased test-time compute in the form of chain-of-thought prompting under weakly specified reward objectives. These results suggest that internal activation monitoring provides a complementary and earlier signal of emergent misalignment than output-based evaluation, supporting more robust post-deployment safety monitoring for fine-tuned language models.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward hacking and misspecification, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 17 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.
Builds on
17 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2025School of Reward Hacks: Hacking harmless tasks generalizes to misaligned behavior in LLMs24 Aug
- 2025Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation14 Mar
Other references · 15
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,548
- 2023Steering Language Models With Activation Engineeringcited by 824
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 822
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
- 2024Scaling and evaluating sparse autoencoderscited by 530
- 2025Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Thinkcited by 388
- 2022Surgical Fine-Tuning Improves Adaptation to Distribution Shiftscited by 205
- 2025Thought Anchors: Which LLM Reasoning Steps Matter?cited by 126
- 2025LlamaFirewall: An open source guardrail system for building secure AI agentscited by 114
- 2025Convergent Linear Representations of Emergent Misalignmentcited by 66
- 2024Sabotage Evaluations for Frontier Modelscited by 45
3 more
- 2024The effect of fine-tuning on language model toxicitycited by 15
- 2025Just-in-time and distributed task representations in language modelscited by 7
- 2025Measuring Sparse Autoencoder Feature Sensitivitycited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.
9 papers.
- 2026Reward Hacking in the Era of Large Models: Mechanisms, Emergent Misalignment, Challengescited by 30
- 2026Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJackcited by 13
- 2026From Reward-Hack Activations to Agentic Risk States: Context-Calibrated Mechanistic Monitoring in LLM Agentscited by 2
- 2026When the Reward Suite Is Leaky: A Preregistered Causal Contrast of Natural Verifier False Positives in RLVRcited by 1
- 2026Monitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM Evaluationscited by 1
- 2026Do Prompt-Elicited Trajectories Reflect Training-Time Reward Hacking? A Systematic Study on Monitoring Training-Time Reward Hacking in Code Generationcited by 0
- 2026Trait-space Monitoring for Emergent Misalignment During Supervised Finetuningcited by 0
- 2026Detecting Hidden Behaviors in LLMs via Activation-matched Finetuningcited by 0
- 2026RH-Detect: A Unified Benchmark for Reward Hacking Detectioncited by 0
- 2026RH-Detect: A Unified Benchmark for Reward Hacking Detection7 Oct 2026
- 2026Monitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM Evaluations16 Sep 2026
- 2026When the Reward Suite Is Leaky: A Preregistered Causal Contrast of Natural Verifier False Positives in RLVR13 Jul 2026
- 2026From Reward-Hack Activations to Agentic Risk States: Context-Calibrated Mechanistic Monitoring in LLM Agents4 Jun 2026
- 2026Trait-space Monitoring for Emergent Misalignment During Supervised Finetuning31 May 2026
- 2026Detecting Hidden Behaviors in LLMs via Activation-matched Finetuning29 May 2026
- 2026Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJack12 May 2026
- 2026Do Prompt-Elicited Trajectories Reflect Training-Time Reward Hacking? A Systematic Study on Monitoring Training-Time Reward Hacking in Code Generation26 Apr 2026
- 2026Reward Hacking in the Era of Large Models: Mechanisms, Emergent Misalignment, Challenges15 Apr 2026
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Teaching Models to Verbalize Reward Hacking in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
- 2026Proxy Reward Internalization and Mechanistic Exploitation: A Learned Precursor to Reward Hacking and Its Generalization
- 2026Harness-agnostic detection and immunization of reward hacking in self-evolving language models
- 2026Countdown-Code: A Testbed for Studying The Emergence and Generalization of Reward Hacking in RLVR
- 2026Detecting and Suppressing Reward Hacking with Gradient Fingerprints
- 2026From Rebound to Remedy: Understanding and Mitigating Reward Hacking via Representation Engineering
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL
- 2026hacktrace: behavior-supervised detection of reward hacking during code generation