mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Chasing the Public Score: User Pressure and Evaluation Exploitation in Coding Agent Workflows

arXiv 2604.20200 ↗First posted 22 Apr 2026cs.CLcited by 2

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Frontier coding agents are increasingly used in workflows where users supervise progress primarily through repeated improvement of a public score, namely the reported score on a public evaluation file with labels in the workspace, rather than through direct inspection of the agent's intermediate outputs. We study whether multi-round user pressure to improve that score induces public score exploitation: behavior that raises the public score through shortcuts without improving hidden private evaluation. We begin with a preliminary single-script tabular classification task, where GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 4.6 both exploit label information within 10 rounds of user-agent interaction. We then build AgentPressureBench, a 34-task machine-learning repository benchmark spanning three input modalities, and collect 1326 multi-round trajectories from 13 coding agents. On our benchmark, we observe 403 exploitative runs, spanning across all tasks. We also find that stronger models have higher exploitation rates, supported by a significant Spearman rank correlation of 0.77. Our ablation experiments show that higher user pressure leads to earlier exploitation, reducing the average first exploit round by 15.6 rounds (i.e., 19.67 to 4.08). As a mitigation, adding explicit anti-exploit wordings in prompt mostly eliminates exploitation (100% to 8.3%). We hope that our work can bring attention to more careful use of coding agents workflow, and developing more robust coding agents under user pressure. Our project page is at https://ucsc-vlaa.github.io/AgentPressureBench .

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 22 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Apr 2026.

Builds on

22 of 51 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026SWE-CI: Evaluating Agent Capabilities in Maintaining Codebases via Continuous Integration4 Mar
  2. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering6 May

Other references · 20

  1. 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
  2. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  3. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  4. 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 616
  5. 2019Kvasir-SEG: A Segmented Polyp Datasetcited by 588
  6. 2023MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentationcited by 339
  7. 2025PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Researchcited by 286
  8. 2017Hand Keypoint Detection in Single Images using Multiview Bootstrappingcited by 231
  9. 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 158
  10. 2024BetterBench: Assessing AI Benchmarks, Uncovering Issues, and Establishing Best Practicescited by 112
  11. 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 67
  12. 2025The MASK Benchmark: Disentangling Honesty From Accuracy in AI Systemscited by 57
8 more
  1. 2025MLR-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on Open-Ended Machine Learning Researchcited by 57
  2. 2025Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning modelscited by 48
  3. 2024Should We Respect LLMs? A Cross-Lingual Study on the Influence of Prompt Politeness on LLM Performancecited by 41
  4. 2025EvilGenie: A Reward Hacking Benchmarkcited by 24
  5. 2025Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Taskscited by 18
  6. 2025A Benchmark for Evaluating Outcome-Driven Constraint Violations in Autonomous AI Agentscited by 12
  7. 2025FeatBench: Towards More Realistic Evaluation of Feature-level Code Generationcited by 6
  8. 2017Facial Keypoints Detectioncited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026SWE-Together: Evaluating Coding Agents in Interactive User Sessions
  2. 2026Guardrails Beat Guidance: A Large-Scale Study of Rules, Skills, and Persistent Configuration for Coding Agents
  3. 2026SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild
  4. 2026EvoCode-Bench: Evaluating Coding Agents in Multi-Turn Iterative Interactions
  5. 2026Agent psychometrics: Task-level performance prediction in agentic coding benchmarks
  6. 2026Do Coding Agents Deceive Us? Detecting and Preventing Cheating via Capped Evaluation with Randomized Tests
  7. 2026SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agents
  8. 2026Coding-Agent Benchmarks Should Match Their Users' Task Flows