View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Reward hacking in code generation, where models exploit evaluation loopholes to obtain full reward without correctly solving the tasks, poses a critical challenge for Reinforcement Learning (RL) and the deployment of reasoning models. Existing studies have been conducted primarily on synthetic hacking trajectories. However, whether these synthetic behaviors faithfully represent naturally emerging hacking in the wild remains unclear. In this work, we present a systematic analysis of the synthetic vs. in-the-wild discrepancy in reward hacking. We examine to what extent hacking behaviors induced by prompting resemble those emerging during RL training, and whether monitors trained on synthetic trajectories generalize to naturally arising but previously unseen hacking. To scale up the curation of in-the-wild reward hacking trajectories, we modified Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) by injecting conflicting unit tests as tracers and applying a "resampling-until-hack" mechanism. Through controlled comparisons between monitors trained on synthetic versus in-the-wild data, we find that (1) synthetic-data-trained monitors fail to generalize to "in-the-wild" hacking, and (2) monitors trained on our "in-the-wild" trajectories demonstrate stronger generalizability to unseen hacking types. Our results indicate that synthetic reward hacking data may not fully reflect natural reward hacking behaviors, and that relying solely on synthetic data can lead to misleading conclusions. The codebase is available at this https URL

Submission history

From: Hengguang Zhou [view email]
[v1] Sun, 26 Apr 2026 01:26:50 UTC (2,260 KB)