Safety Hacking in Constrained Best-of-N Inference-time Scaling
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Inference-time pipelines often sample multiple outputs, filter them with a learned safety model, and return the proxy-feasible output with the highest learned reward. We show that this composition creates a two-stage failure: an imperfect safety proxy first contaminates the feasible set with unsafe outputs, and reward maximization can then amplify this residual contamination. We define safety hacking as selecting an output that passes the learned constraint but violates the true safety criterion. For constrained Best-of-N sampling, we derive finite-N bounds governed by the joint upper reward tails of safe and unsafe outputs within the proxy-feasible set. If unsafe-but-feasible outputs have the heavier tail, safety hacking becomes asymptotically certain as N grows, even when false-positive mass and average safety- and reward-proxy errors are arbitrarily small. We also show that policies within a bounded chi2 divergence from the proxy-feasible reference distribution admit an N-independent safety-hacking bound, and instantiate this general coverage-control principle with constrained pessimistic sampling. Coverage control limits amplification but cannot repair a contaminated feasible set: admitted unsafe outputs may still be favored, and regularized selection is not necessarily safer than constrained Best-of-N for every reward proxy. Toy and language-model experiments characterize both contamination and its reward-tail amplification, which exposes an inherent difficulty in inference-time scaling with learned safety models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
14 of 29 references.
References · 14
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2024HarmBench: A Standardized Evaluation Framework for Automated Red Teaming and Robust Refusalcited by 1,429
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,207
- 2025OpenAI GPT-5 System Cardcited by 989
- 2021Unsolved Problems in ML Safetycited by 292
- 2024ShieldGemma: Generative AI Content Moderation Based on Gemmacited by 243
- 2025Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergycited by 214
- 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 149
- 2024Best-of-N Jailbreakingcited by 76
2 more
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Tail Competition Explains Scaling in Best-of-N Sampling for Verifiable Problems
- 2025Provably Optimal Reinforcement Learning under Safety Filtering
- 2025Saffron-1: Safety Inference Scaling
- 2025Constrained Policy Optimization via Sampling-Based Weight-Space Projection
- 2026Information-Theoretic Limits of Safety Verification for Self-Improving Systems
- 2024Safe Reinforcement Learning with Learned Non-Markovian Safety Constraints
- 2025TraCeS: Learning Per-Timestep Constraint-Violation Credit from Sparse Trajectory-Level Labels
- 2026The Geometry of Refusal: Why Post-Hoc Safety Is Fragile and Pretraining-Time Safety Persists