Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents

Large language models (LLMs) power deep research agents that synthesize information from hundreds of web sources into cited reports, yet these citations cannot be reliably verified. Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking bias, or employ retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) that does not validate source accessibility, relevance, or factual consistency. We introduce the first source attribution evaluation framework that uses a reproducible AST parser to extract and evaluate inline citations from LLM-generated Markdown reports at scale. Unlike methods that verify claims in isolation, our framework closes the loop by retrieving the actual cited content, enabling human or model evaluators to judge each citation against its source. Citations are evaluated along three dimensions. (1) Link Works verifies URL accessibility, (2) Relevant Content measures topical alignment, and (3) Fact Check validates factual accuracy against source content. We benchmark 14 closed-source and open-source LLMs across three evaluation dimensions using rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluators calibrated through human review. Our results reveal that even the strongest frontier models maintain link validity above 94% and relevance above 80%, yet achieve only 39-77% factual accuracy, while fewer than half of open-source models successfully generate cited reports in a one-shot setting. Ablation studies on research depth show that Fact Check accuracy drops by approximately 42% on average across two frontier models as tool calls scale from 2 to 150, demonstrating that more retrieval does not produce more accurate citations. These findings reveal a critical disconnect between surface-level citation quality and factual reliability, and our framework provides the evaluation infrastructure to assess the disconnect.

DataDignity: Training Data Attribution for Large Language Models

Auditing language-model outputs often requires more than judging correctness: an auditor may need to identify which source document most likely supports the knowledge expressed in a response. We study this as pinpoint provenance: given a prompt, a target-model response, and a candidate corpus, rank the documents that best support the response. We introduce FakeWiki, a controlled benchmark of 3,537 fabricated Wikipedia-style articles designed to preserve ground-truth provenance while weakening lexical shortcuts. FakeWiki includes QA probes, source-preserving paraphrases, retro-generated variants, hard anti-documents that remain topically similar while removing answer-critical facts, and five query conditions: clean prompting plus four jailbreak-inspired transformations. We evaluate seven retrieval baselines, a training-free activation-steering retrieval-fusion method, SteerFuse, and a supervised contrastive provenance ranker, ScoringModel. ScoringModel maps response and document features into a shared space and is trained with InfoNCE using in-batch, retrieval-mined, and anti-document negatives. Across nine open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs and five query conditions, ScoringModel improves mean Recall@10 from 35.0 for the strongest retrieval baseline to 52.2, without inference-time fusion, and wins 41/45 model-by-condition cells. SteerFuse is usually second-best despite requiring no supervised training, showing that activation-space evidence can efficiently complement text retrieval. On jailbreak-inspired transformed queries, ScoringModel improves Recall@10 by 15.7 points on average over the best baseline. Overall, our work shows that robust training data attribution requires evaluation settings that separate true answer support from topical or lexical resemblance.

Negative Before Positive: Asymmetric Valence Processing in Large Language Models

Mechanistic interpretability has revealed how concepts are encoded in large language models (LLMs), but emotional content remains poorly understood at the mechanistic level. We study whether LLMs process emotional valence through dedicated internal structure or through surface token matching. Using activation patching and steering on open-source LLMs, we find that negative and positive valence are processed at different network depths. Negative outcomes localize to early layers while positive outcomes peak at mid-to-late layers. Holding topic fixed while flipping valence produces sign-opposite responses, ruling out topic detection. Steering with the good-news direction at the identified layers shifts neutral prompts toward positive valence, showing these layers encode valence as a manipulable direction. Emotional valence in LLMs is localized, causal and steerable, making it a concrete target for interpretability-based oversight.

STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to maintain coherent, long-term personalized memory, yet current benchmarks primarily measure static fact retrieval, overlooking the ability to revise stored beliefs when new evidence emerges. We identify a critical and underexplored failure mode, Implicit Conflict: a later observation invalidates an earlier memory without explicit negation, requiring contextual inference and commonsense reasoning to detect. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we introduce STALE, a benchmark of 400 expert-validated conflict scenarios (1,200 evaluation queries across three probing dimensions) spanning over 100 everyday topics with contexts up to 150K tokens. We propose a three-dimensional probing framework that tests State Resolution (detecting that a prior belief is outdated), Premise Resistance (rejecting queries that falsely presuppose a stale state), and Implicit Policy Adaptation (proactively applying updated states in downstream behavior). A systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized memory frameworks reveals a pervasive gap between retrieving updated evidence and acting on it, with even the best evaluated model achieving only 55.2% overall accuracy. Models often accept outdated assumptions embedded in a user's query, and they struggle to recognize when a change in one aspect of the user's state should invalidate related memories. To establish an initial baseline for state-aware memory, we further present CUPMem, a prototype that strengthens write-time revision through structured state consolidation and propagation-aware search, suggesting that explicit state adjudication is a promising direction for robust agentic memory.

RobotEQ: Transitioning from Passive Intelligence to Active Intelligence in Embodied AI

Embodied AI is a prominent research topic in both academia and industry. Current research centers on completing tasks based on explicit user instructions. However, for robots to integrate into human society, they must understand which actions are permissible and which are prohibited, even without explicit commands. We refer to the user-guided AI as passive intelligence and the unguided AI as active intelligence. This paper introduces RobotEQ, the first benchmark for active intelligence, aiming to assess whether existing models can comprehend and adhere to social norms in embodied scenarios. First, we construct RobotEQ-Data, a dataset consisting of 1,900 egocentric images, spanning 10 representative embodied categories and 56 subcategories. Through extensive manual annotation, we provide 5,353 action judgment questions and 1,286 spatial grounding questions, specifying appropriate robot actions across diverse scenarios. Furthermore, we establish RobotEQ-Bench to evaluate the performance of state-of-the-art models on this task. Experimental results show that current models still fall short in achieving reliable active intelligence, particularly in spatial grounding. Meanwhile, we observe that leveraging RAG techniques to incorporate external social norm knowledge bases can generally enhance performance. This work can facilitate the transition of robotics from user-guided passive manipulation to active social compliance.

Trojan Hippo: Weaponizing Agent Memory for Data Exfiltration

Memory systems enable otherwise-stateless LLM agents to persist user information across sessions, but also introduce a new attack surface. We characterize the Trojan Hippo attack, a class of persistent memory attacks that operates in a more realistic threat model than prior memory poisoning work: the attacker plants a dormant payload into an agent's long-term memory via a single untrusted tool call (e.g., a crafted email), which activates only when the user later discusses sensitive topics such as finance, health, or identity, and exfiltrates high-value personal data to the attacker. While anecdotal demonstrations of such attacks have appeared against deployed systems, no prior work systematically evaluates them across heterogeneous memory architectures and defenses. We introduce a dynamic evaluation framework comprising two components: (1) an OpenEvolve-based adaptive red-teaming benchmark that stress-tests defenses and memory backends against continuously refined attacks, and (2) the first capability-aware security/utility analysis for persistent memory systems, enabling principled reasoning about defense deployment across different usage profiles. Instantiated on an email assistant across four memory backends (explicit tool memory, agentic memory, RAG, and sliding-window context), Trojan Hippo achieves up to 85-100% ASR against current frontier models from OpenAI and Google, with planted memories successfully activating even after 100 benign sessions. We evaluate four memory-system defenses inspired by basic security principles, finding they substantially reduce attack success rates (to as low as 0-5%), though at utility costs that vary widely with task requirements. Because of this substantial security-utility tradeoff, the effective real-world deployment of defenses remains an open challenge, which our evaluation framework is specifically designed to address.

Symbolic Regression via Neural Networks

Identifying governing equations for a dynamical system is a topic of critical interest across an array of disciplines, from mathematics to engineering to biology. Machine learning -- specifically deep learning -- techniques have shown their capabilities in approximating dynamics from data, but a shortcoming of traditional deep learning is that there is little insight into the underlying mapping beyond its numerical output for a given input. This limits their utility in analysis beyond simple prediction. Simultaneously, a number of strategies exist which identify models based on a fixed dictionary of basis functions, but most either require some intuition or insight about the system, or are susceptible to overfitting or a lack of parsimony. Here we present a novel approach that combines the flexibility and accuracy of deep learning approaches with the utility of symbolic solutions: a deep neural network that generates a symbolic expression for the governing equations. We first describe the architecture for our model, then show the accuracy of our algorithm across a range of classical dynamical systems.

Cognitive Twins: Investigating Personalized Thinking Model Building and Its Performance Enhancement with Human-in-the-Loop

This paper presents the Personalized Thinking Model (PTM), a hierarchical and interpretable learner representation designed for AI supported education. PTM organizes evidence from learner journals into a five-layer structure covering behavioral instances, behavioral patterns, cognitive routines, metacognitive tendencies, and self-system values. PTM is grounded in Marzano's New Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and tries to clone learner's thinking model and build cognitive twin. It was constructed using a pipeline that combines large language model inference (Gemini 2.5 Pro), sentence embeddings, dimensionality reduction, and consensus clustering. This paper evaluates PTM fidelity through three methods applied to 40 participants in a seven-week study. First, automatic evaluation using atomic information point matching yielded an overall F1 score of 74.57% before human-in-the-loop (HITL) refinement and 75.48% after refinement. Second, user evaluation using a Likert scale produced mean ratings of 4.26 and 4.30 on a five-point scale for pre and post-HITL conditions respectively. Third, semantic alignment verification showed that topic coherence increased from 0.436 at the behavioral layer to 0.626 at the core value layer, while lexical overlap with journal vocabulary decreased from 0.114 to 0.007 across those same layers. These results suggest that the PTM produces outputs with acceptable fidelity, was generally perceived by users as reflecting their thinking, and showed a pattern consistent with semantic abstraction across layers.

Less is More: Geometric Unlearning for LLMs with Minimal Data Disclosure

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world systems, they must support post-hoc removal of specific content to meet privacy and governance requirements. This motivates selective unlearning, which suppresses information about a particular entity or topic while preserving the LLM's general utility. However, most existing LLM unlearning methods require access to the original training corpus and rely on output-level refusal tuning or broad gradient updates, creating a tension among unlearning strength, non-target preservation, and data availability. We propose Geometric Unlearning (GU), an approach that operates directly on the model's prompt-time planning states without access to the original training corpus. GU distills a compact, low-rank geometry of desired safe behavior from a small set of safe reference prompts, and uses lightweight anchor-in-context synthetic prompts to trigger localized, projection-based alignment of hidden planning representations to this safe geometry. A teacher-distillation regularizer on synthetic non-target anchors further reduces collateral drift. Across privacy-oriented unlearning benchmarks (ToFU and UnlearnPII), GU achieves strong target suppression with minimal impact on non-target performance, demonstrating that effective unlearning can be achieved with minimal synthetic data.