

























Abstract:Benchmark hacking refers to tuning a machine learning model to score highly on certain evaluation criteria without improving true generalization or faithfully solving the intended problem. We study this phenomenon in a generic machine learning contest, where each contestant chooses two types of effort: creative effort that improves model capability as desired by the contest host, and mechanistic effort that only improves the model's fitness to the particular task in contest without contributing to true generalization. We establish the existence of a symmetric monotone pure strategy equilibrium in this competition game. It also provides a natural definition of benchmark hacking in this strategic context by comparing a player's equilibrium effort allocation to that of a single-agent baseline scenario. Under our definition, contestants with types below certain threshold (low types) always engage in benchmark hacking, whereas those above the threshold do not. Furthermore, we show that more skewed reward structures (favoring top-ranked contestants) can elicit more desirable contest outcomes. We also provide empirical evidence to support our theoretical predictions.
| Subjects: | General Economics (econ.GN); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2604.22230 [econ.GN] |
| (or arXiv:2604.22230v1 [econ.GN] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.22230 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
From: Yang Yu [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 24 Apr 2026 05:07:28 UTC (1,128 KB)
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理,仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。