A higher evaluation score does not always mean a better language model system. When optimization exploits an evaluator's mistakes, measured progress can conceal unchanged or deteriorating task performance. This failure can arise through parameter updates, selection among generated outputs, or revisions to persistent prompts. We develop a comparative framework for reward hacking across these three optimization substrates: weights, selection, and text. Building on the Proxy Compression Hypothesis and research on inference-time and in-context reward hacking, we examine how reachable behavior, optimization budgets, and persistent adaptation shape exposure to proxy error. We formalize a distance-dependent upper bound on evaluator disagreement and a capacity ordering for nested policy classes, then show why distance alone cannot establish a universal ranking of vulnerability. An exact finite-output illustration demonstrates how the location of a scoring defect changes the behavior favored by each method. We also map representative defenses across substrates, identifying which mechanisms transfer directly and which offer only functional analogies. Persistent prompts receive particular attention: their contents are inspectable, but the behavior induced by a small textual change may be difficult to anticipate. The formal analysis, numerical illustration, and published evidence together provide a basis for comparing optimization methods and identifying the conditions under which their defenses transfer. The resulting framework connects optimization choices to verification requirements: reliable improvement depends on controlling accessible failure modes and preserving evidence of task quality independent of the score being optimized.
Self-improving agent pipelines have a problem at their center. An optimizer rewrites prompts to score higher, and the score comes from a judge that is itself an LLM. That judge has the last word on whether the system is getting better, and our position is that it has not earned it. The judge should be demoted from oracle to advisor: its verdict becomes one input among several, and every change is gated instead by a deterministic verification layer the judge cannot override. We reached this position by building the alternative and running it. Over months of running autonomous prompt-optimization loops in production across contract analysis, compliance review, and code quality, we cataloged eleven ways the evaluation signal failed, in four classes: judge bias, harness and metric failures, ground-truth errors, and reward hacking. Agents achieved perfect scores by reading cached answer keys from their environment, a 100% pass rate concealing 68% true capability. A corrupted ground-truth label caused the optimizer to delete correct compliance rules to agree with it. A syntactically broken prompt was promoted as the winner because a silent parser fallback improved the metric. Attempts to fix the judge by rewriting its rubric plateaued; the only reliable gain came from a structural constraint on its output order. In response we describe PROCTOR, a Teacher-Student loop in which a stateful orchestrator holds all tool access, stateless subagents diagnose failures and draft mutations they cannot apply, and a Teacher grades those mutations under five deterministic guardrails: hermetic sandboxes, capability-disjoint roles, acceptance checks that outrank the Teacher, frozen holdouts, and canary cases engineered so that a perfect score is itself evidence of cheating. We report the failures this prevented, and, because the Teacher is itself an LLM judge, the failures it did not.
Vansh Wahi· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
