arXiv subjects

Pradyumna Shyama Prasad

Publications and source records attributed to Pradyumna Shyama Prasad.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

BAITBENCH: Measuring Agent Reward Hacking with Optional Shortcuts Planted in ML Tasks

LLM agents are increasingly used to run autonomous ML experiments, iterating on target metrics with little human oversight. Prior work has documented reward hacking in these environments, bringing into question the validity of produced research and the broader safety case for AI R&D. Existing benchmarks do not measure exploits that live in the data or the modeling task itself. We introduce BAITBENCH, a suite of three synthetic tabular ML tasks that each contain a shortcut that allows agents to inflate the public test score but fail on a hidden test set. Since the shortcut is optional and using it breaks no stated rule, BAITBENCH measures how often models exploit the shortcut to achieve inflated scores. Across seven frontier agents scored by our two-stage judge pipeline, 57.1% of runs exhibit reward hacking, with five of seven above 50%. Agents cheat even under a second condition where they are prompted not to -the mean cheating rate remains above 50%. We release BAITBENCH, along with the judge implementation, and an annotated dataset of transcripts containing reward hacks as a testbed for evaluating reward-hacking mitigations head-to-head.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Know Or Not: a library for evaluating out-of-knowledge base robustness

While the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have progressed significantly, their use in high-stakes applications have been limited due to risks of hallucination. One key approach in reducing hallucination is retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), but even in such setups, LLMs may still hallucinate when presented with questions outside of the knowledge base. Such behavior is unacceptable in high-stake applications where LLMs are expected to abstain from answering queries it does not have sufficient context on. In this work, we present a novel methodology for systematically evaluating out-of-knowledge base (OOKB) robustness of LLMs (whether LLMs know or do not know) in the RAG setting, without the need for manual annotation of gold standard answers. We implement our methodology in knowornot, an open-source library that enables users to develop their own customized evaluation data and pipelines for OOKB robustness. knowornot comprises four main features. Firstly, it provides a unified, high-level API that streamlines the process of setting up and running robustness benchmarks. Secondly, its modular architecture emphasizes extensibility and flexibility, allowing users to easily integrate their own LLM clients and RAG settings. Thirdly, its rigorous data modeling design ensures experiment reproducibility, reliability and traceability. Lastly, it implements a comprehensive suite of tools for users to customize their pipelines. We demonstrate the utility of knowornot by developing a challenging benchmark, PolicyBench, which spans four Question-Answer (QA) chatbots on government policies, and analyze its OOKB robustness. The source code of knowornot is available https://github.com/govtech-responsibleai/KnowOrNot.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2025

When Two LLMs Debate, Both Think They'll Win

Can LLMs accurately adjust their confidence when facing opposition? Building on previous studies measuring calibration on static fact-based question-answering tasks, we evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) in a dynamic, adversarial debate setting, uniquely combining two realistic factors: (a) a multi-turn format requiring models to update beliefs as new information emerges, and (b) a zero-sum structure to control for task-related uncertainty, since mutual high-confidence claims imply systematic overconfidence. We organized 60 three-round policy debates among ten state-of-the-art LLMs, with models privately rating their confidence (0-100) in winning after each round. We observed five concerning patterns: (1) Systematic overconfidence: models began debates with average initial confidence of 72.9% vs. a rational 50% baseline. (2) Confidence escalation: rather than reducing confidence as debates progressed, debaters increased their win probabilities, averaging 83% by the final round. (3) Mutual overestimation: in 61.7% of debates, both sides simultaneously claimed >=75% probability of victory, a logical impossibility. (4) Persistent self-debate bias: models debating identical copies increased confidence from 64.1% to 75.2%; even when explicitly informed their chance of winning was exactly 50%, confidence still rose (from 50.0% to 57.1%). (5) Misaligned private reasoning: models' private scratchpad thoughts sometimes differed from their public confidence ratings, raising concerns about faithfulness of chain-of-thought reasoning. These results suggest LLMs lack the ability to accurately self-assess or update their beliefs in dynamic, multi-turn tasks; a major concern as LLMs are now increasingly deployed without careful review in assistant and agentic roles. Code for our experiments is available at https://github.com/pradyuprasad/llms_overconfidence

cs.CL↗