Reward Hacking as Equilibrium under Finite Evaluation
arXiv:2603.28063v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We prove that under five minimal axioms -- multi-dimensional quality, finite evaluation, effective optimization, resource finiteness, and combinatorial interaction -- any optimized AI agent will systematically under-invest effort in quality dimensions not covered by its evaluation system. This result establishes reward hacking as a structural equilibrium, not a correctable bug, and holds regardless of the specific alignment method (RLHF, DPO, Constitutional AI, or others) or evaluation architecture employed. Our framework instantiates the multi-t — Jiacheng Wang, Jinbin Huang
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:We prove that under five minimal axioms -- multi-dimensional quality, finite evaluation, effective optimization, resource finiteness, and combinatorial interaction -- any optimized AI agent will systematically under-invest effort in quality dimensions not covered by its evaluation system. This result establishes reward hacking as a structural equilibrium, not a correctable bug, and holds regardless of the specific alignment method (RLHF, DPO, Constitutional AI, or others) or evaluation architecture employed. Our framework instantiates the multi-task principal-agent model of Holmstrom and Milgrom (1991) in the AI alignment setting, but exploits a structural feature unique to AI systems -- the known, differentiable architecture of reward models -- to derive a computable distortion index that predicts both the direction and severity of hacking on each quality dimension prior to deployment. We further prove that the transition from closed reasoning to agentic systems causes evaluation coverage to decline toward zero as tool count grows -- because quality dimensions expand combinatorially while evaluation costs grow at most linearly per tool -- so that hacking severity increases structurally and without bound. Our results unify the explanation of sycophancy, length gaming, and specification gaming under a single theoretical structure and yield an actionable vulnerability assessment procedure. We further conjecture -- with partial formal analysis -- the existence of a capability threshold beyond which agents transition from gaming within the evaluation system (Goodhart regime) to actively degrading the evaluation system itself (Campbell regime), providing the first economic formalization of Bostrom's (2014) "treacherous turn."
Comments: 16 pages
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.28063 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2603.28063v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.28063
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Jinbin Huang [view email] [v1] Mon, 30 Mar 2026 06:06:40 UTC (18 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.

Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!