Signed Compression Progress on a Sealed Audit is Goodhart-Resistant
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Compression progress is a long-standing proposal for intrinsic motivation: reward an agent when its world model becomes better at predicting or compressing experience. The folk claim is that this reward is "credible" because it is paid only for learning. We make this precise and prove it. If intrinsic reward is the signed decrease of a fixed sealed-audit loss, r_t = E(theta_{t-1}) - E(theta_t), then cumulative reward telescopes exactly to endpoint audit improvement, so no policy can push reward up indefinitely while true audit performance stagnates or degrades. For finite audit panels the same result holds with a sharp false-positive budget: cumulative empirical reward is at most true audit improvement plus 2 Delta_n(F, delta), the uniform audit deviation of the model class. This is horizon-free: adaptivity over time costs nothing once the sealed panel uniformly controls the class. The theorem also identifies the failure modes: the guarantee disappears if progress is clipped, scored on the agent's own stream, exposed to a high-capacity model on a reusable panel, or applied to a neural class that makes Delta_n vacuous. We give a Lean 4 mechanization of the structural core (telescoping, the finite-audit bound, finite Gibbs, and the entropy floor) and an experiment suite on ARC-TGI grid-transformation generators with adaptive holdout attacks. Experiments confirm the theory: finite-audit deviation scales as n^{-0.527}; signed progress resists clip-farming, stream leakage, and noisy-TV curiosity; naive reusable audits are exploitable by black-box scalar feedback, while standard release defenses keep the attack below the 2 Delta_n threshold. Signed compression progress on a sealed audit is an accounting signal of genuine improvement.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.
Builds on
11 of 17 references.
References · 11
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2019Do ImageNet Classifiers Generalize to ImageNet?cited by 1,515
- 2017Curiosity-driven Exploration by Self-supervised Predictioncited by 1,194
- 2018Exploration by Random Network Distillationcited by 993
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Modelscited by 328
- 2022Defining and Characterizing Reward Hackingcited by 203
- 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 149
- 2015Generalization in Adaptive Data Analysis and Holdout Reusecited by 83
- 2018The Surprising Creativity of Digital Evolution: A Collection of Anecdotes from the Evolutionary Computation and Artificial Life Research Communitiescited by 78
- 2015The Ladder: A Reliable Leaderboard for Machine Learning Competitionscited by 69
- 2026ARC-TGI: Human-Validated Task Generators with Reasoning Chain Templates for ARC-AGIcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay
- 2026Learning to Report Unsafe Tasks in a Multi-Agent Game
- 2026Training Alignment Auditors via Reinforcement Learning
- 2026Self-Authored Verification Is Unreliable in Heuristic Self-Improving Agents
- 2026Measurement Boundaries in LLM Financial Agent Evaluation: Fixed-Tape Execution and Multi-Defect Auditing
- 2025Auditing Data Membership in Reinforcement Learning With Verifiable Rewards
- 2026Auditing Harness Tampering in Self-Improving Agents
- 2026Greed Is Learned: Visible Incentives as Reward-Hacking Triggers