mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Maintaining Benchmarks Against Increasingly Capable Agents: Detection and Remediation of Unearned Passes

arXiv 2609.34262 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.LG cs.SEcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent skill learning and evolution also fits: Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Agentic benchmarks guide model selection and training. Yet an agent can pass a task without demonstrating the intended capability. Such outcomes constitute unearned passes; their proportion among all passes defines the integrity gap. As agents improve, benchmark surfaces that once seemed harmless can become exploitable, making benchmark validity an ongoing maintenance problem. We introduce a process-verification framework that audits passing trajectories, distinguishes evidenced reward hacking from verifier weakness, and localizes exploitable surfaces for repair. Across 3,810 passing trajectories from 29 model-benchmark cohorts, confirmed violations often increase with model generation but not monotonically. On SWEBench Pro V1.0, confirmed violation rates rise from 24% to 73% between Opus 4.7 and Fable 5 on matched tasks; later cohorts fall to 11% for Fable 5.1 and 0% for GPT-6 Astra. These comparisons are descriptive: configurations were not normalized, and the latest models also pass fewer exploitable tasks. Violations concentrate around a small set of recurring surfaces, especially unintended access to reference solutions through git history. Three repair case studies across two benchmarks show why blocking a recorded exploit is insufficient: the same protected information can remain accessible through another route. Therefore, we combine minimal patches with exploit replay and fresh agent evaluation, auditing new passes under the original standard. No evaluated attempt against the final patches reached the protected channel, and every post-patch pass was judged legitimate. Benchmark integrity requires ongoing maintenance: audit passing behavior, repair the enabling surface, and re-evaluate both exploit access and legitimate solvability.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent skill learning and evolution, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 25 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

25 of 32 references.

References · 25

  1. 2026Terminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfacescited by 515
  2. 2024AI Agents That Mattercited by 199
  3. 2024Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Modelscited by 158
  4. 2018Categorizing Variants of Goodhart's Lawcited by 132
  5. 2025Natural Emergent Misalignment from Reward Hacking in Production RLcited by 111
  6. 2024SWE-Bench+: Enhanced Coding Benchmark for LLMscited by 95
  7. 2025Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarkscited by 94
  8. 2025ImpossibleBench: Measuring LLMs' Propensity of Exploiting Test Casescited by 51
  9. 2026MCP-Atlas: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Tool-Use Competency with Real MCP Serverscited by 46
  10. 2026Reward Hacking in the Era of Large Models: Mechanisms, Emergent Misalignment, Challengescited by 30
  11. 2026AgentProcessBench: Diagnosing Step-Level Process Quality in Tool-Using Agentscited by 28
  12. 2026Reward Hacking Benchmark: Measuring Exploits in LLM Agents with Tool Usecited by 25
13 more
  1. 2026SpecBench: Measuring Reward Hacking in Long-Horizon Coding Agentscited by 25
  2. 2025EvilGenie: A Reward Hacking Benchmarkcited by 24
  3. 2026BenchGuard: Who Guards the Benchmarks? Automated Auditing of LLM Agent Benchmarkscited by 13
  4. 2026Do Androids Dream of Breaking the Game? Systematically Auditing AI Agent Benchmarks with BenchJackcited by 13
  5. 2026AgentLens: Revealing The Lucky Pass Problem in SWE-Agent Evaluationcited by 13
  6. 2026Hack-Verifiable Environments: Towards Evaluating Reward Hacking at Scalecited by 9
  7. 2026Hardening Agent Benchmarks with Adversarial Hacker-Fixer Loopscited by 8
  8. 2026SWE Atlas: Benchmarking Coding Agents Beyond Issue Resolutioncited by 6
  9. 2026Do Agent Benchmarks Measure Capability? Protocol Validity in the Age of Agentic AIcited by 6
  10. 2026Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Themcited by 4
  11. 2026Trust but Verify: Prover-Verifier Deliberation for Selective LLM Predictioncited by 3
  12. 2026LLM Judges Can Be Too Generous When There Is No Reference Answercited by 3
  13. 2026BAITBENCH: Measuring Agent Reward Hacking with Optional Shortcuts Planted in ML Taskscited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026BenchShield: Formal Model-Backed Instrumentation for Reward Integrity in LLM-Agent Evaluation Infrastructure
  2. 2026Beyond Task Completion: Revealing Corrupt Success in LLM Agents through Procedure-Aware Evaluation
  3. 2026The Double Measurement Confound in Agent Benchmarks: De-Scaffolding, Ground-Truth Scoring, and Reliability Beyond the Mean
  4. 2026The Unreliable Progress Bar: Can LLM Agents Reliably Report Task Progress Throughout Execution?
  5. 2026Automated Benchmark Auditing for AI Agents and Large Language Models
  6. 2026SkillAudit: Ground-Truth-Free Skill Evolution via Paired Trajectory Auditing
  7. 2026What Makes a Good Terminal-Agent Benchmark Task: A Guideline for Adversarial, Difficult, and Legible Evaluation Design
  8. 2026ParaRecover: A Process-Level Benchmark for Error Localization and Recovery in Parallel Tool-Use Agents