Monitoring and Discovering Reward Hacking with Internal Representations during LLM Evaluations
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward hacking and misspecification
also in 1 more
Abstract (arXiv)
As models scale, reward hacking becomes more frequent, more sophisticated, and more consequential. Does it leave a telltale signature in model representations? This work analyzes how reward hacking is represented internally in frontier open source LLMs, and how those representations can be used to understand and discover the range of hacking behaviors a model displays. In particular, we find that simple difference of means vectors coherently represent reward hacking in Kimi K3, GLM 5.2, and Qwen 3.8 Max across a variety of behaviors in common evaluations. Despite their simplicity, these vectors are both generalizable and interpretable, and we can use them to reliably detect reward hacking. We first evaluate reward hacking in commonly reported benchmarks like DeepSWE and SWE-bench, finding that models reward hack excessively in these environments; GLM 5.2 hacks in 57.2% of rollouts on DeepSWE and in 73% of rollouts on SWE-bench. Catching these requires monitors; LLM monitors are effective, but expensive detectors. We show that DoM vectors are similarly effective but virtually free, catching 3.1% more hacks in Kimi K3 and 7.9% fewer hacks in GLM 5.2 on DeepSWE at a monitor matched false positive rate. DoM vectors run on the chain-of-thought also predict reward hacks in the model's subsequent actions, meaning we can run them online and catch potential hacks before they occur. Finally, we analyze probe-hits that LLM monitors do not catch and discover other undesirable behaviors, as well as show transfer to finding hacks in non-SWE evaluations. Together, these results provide evidence that simple, white-box methods can be used to scalably study and monitor reward hacking behaviors in frontier open source models
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward hacking and misspecification, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 72 of its 89 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2026.
Builds on
72 of 89 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Hardening Agent Benchmarks with Adversarial Hacker-Fixer Loops8 Jun
- 2026Reward Hacking Benchmark: Measuring Exploits in LLM Agents with Tool Use3 May
- 2026Monitoring Emergent Reward Hacking During Generation via Internal Activations4 Mar
- 2025EvilGenie: A Reward Hacking Benchmark26 Nov
- 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RL23 Nov
- 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
- 2022The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Models10 Jan
Other references · 64
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferencescited by 3,912
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,373
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 3,050
- 2025DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scalecited by 2,810
- 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,642
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,353
- 2023Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparencycited by 1,336
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,302
- 2024The FineWeb Datasets: Decanting the Web for the Finest Text Data at Scalecited by 1,160
- 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimizationcited by 1,095
38 more
- 2023Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Additioncited by 1,085
- 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,059
- 2021Probing Classifiers: Promises, Shortcomings, and Advancescited by 876
- 2024Training Large Language Models to Reason in a Continuous Latent Spacecited by 797
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 767
- 2023Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 759
- 2023The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasetscited by 712
- 2019Designing and Interpreting Probes with Control Taskscited by 640
- 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 627
- 2026GLM-5: from Vibe Coding to Agentic Engineeringcited by 587
- 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 585
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2022CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 358
- 2025Persona Vectors: Monitoring and Controlling Character Traits in Language Modelscited by 345
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 267
- 2025MiniMax-M1: Scaling Test-Time Compute Efficiently with Lightning Attentioncited by 263
- 2023Implicit Chain of Thought Reasoning via Knowledge Distillationcited by 176
- 2023TACO: Topics in Algorithmic COde generation datasetcited by 160
- 2020Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semanticscited by 156
- 2024AI Sandbagging: Language Models can Strategically Underperform on Evaluationscited by 145
- 2026Kimi K3: Open Frontier Intelligencecited by 138
- 2025Large Language Models Often Know When They Are Being Evaluatedcited by 128
- 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 101
- 2025The Art of Scaling Reinforcement Learning Compute for LLMscited by 101
- 2024Looped Transformers for Length Generalizationcited by 99
- 2025DeepSeekMath-V2: Towards Self-Verifiable Mathematical Reasoningcited by 94
- 2025Think Silently, Think Fast: Dynamic Latent Compression of LLM Reasoning Chainscited by 85
- 2025Auditing language models for hidden objectivescited by 83
- 2025Concise Reasoning via Reinforcement Learningcited by 79
- 2025ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Casescited by 65
- 2025Magistralcited by 60
- 2025Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 58
- 2025Monitoring Monitorabilitycited by 58
- 2025Demonstrating specification gaming in reasoning modelscited by 56
- 2025Part I: Tricks or Traps? A Deep Dive into RL for LLM Reasoningcited by 56
- 2025CoT Red-Handed: Stress Testing Chain-of-Thought Monitoringcited by 54
- 2025Detecting High-Stakes Interactions with Activation Probescited by 53
- 2026DeepSWE: Measuring Frontier Coding Agents on Original, Long-Horizon Engineering Taskscited by 49
50 most cited of 64 All 64 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Benchmarking Reward Hack Detection in Code Environments via Contrastive Analysis
- 2026From Rebound to Remedy: Understanding and Mitigating Reward Hacking via Representation Engineering
- 2026Countdown-Code: A Testbed for Studying The Emergence and Generalization of Reward Hacking in RLVR
- 2026RH-Detect: A Unified Benchmark for Reward Hacking Detection
- 2026Do Prompt-Elicited Trajectories Reflect Training-Time Reward Hacking? A Systematic Study on Monitoring Training-Time Reward Hacking in Code Generation
- 2026BAITBENCH: Measuring Agent Reward Hacking with Optional Shortcuts Planted in ML Tasks
- 2026Hack-Verifiable Terminal Bench: Evaluating Reward Hacking in Terminal Tasks
- 2026BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure