Mitigating Reward Hacking in RLHF via Advantage Sign Robustness

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is a powerful technique for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preference. However, it often suffers from the reward hacking issue, where policy optimization improves the proxy reward model while actually degrading performance with respect to the true human preference, due to the imperfection of the proxy. To address this, we propose Reward Model Boosting (RMB), a novel approach that enhances the robustness and reliability of the reward signal for RLHF. RMB first trains a set of reward models with a diversity-promoting regularizer. This encourages each model to learn complementary aspects of the reward landscape. Then, RMB learns a lightweight aggregator in the principle of boosting to aggregate the outputs of the diverse reward models into a more accurate and robust reward signal. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that RMB significantly improves reward accuracy on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution datasets, substantially mitigating the reward hacking issue and ultimately improving RLHF performance.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are two key steps in the post-training of modern Language Models (LMs). A common problem is reward hacking, where the policy may exploit inaccuracies of the reward and learn an unintended behavior. Most previous works address this by limiting the policy update with a Kullback-Leibler (KL) penalty towards a reference model. We propose a different framing: Train the LM in a way that biases policy updates towards regions in which the reward is more accurate. First, we derive a theoretical connection between the accuracy of a reward model and the flatness of an optimum at convergence. Gradient regularization (GR) can then be used to bias training to flatter regions and thereby maintain reward model accuracy. We confirm these results by showing that the gradient norm and reward accuracy are empirically correlated in RLHF. We then empirically show that Reference Resets of the KL penalty find flatter regions with a higher reward accuracy. We further improve on this by proposing to use explicit GR with an efficient finite-difference estimate. Empirically, GR performs better than a KL penalty across a diverse set of RL experiments with LMs. GR achieves a higher GPT-judged win-rate in RLHF, avoids overly focusing on the format in rule-based math rewards, and prevents hacking the judge in LLM-as-a-Judge math tasks.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) remains vulnerable to reward hacking, where models exploit spurious correlations in learned reward models to achieve high scores while violating human intent. Existing mitigations rely on static defenses that cannot adapt to novel exploitation strategies. We propose Adversarial Reward Auditing (ARA), a framework that reconceptualizes reward hacking as a dynamic, competitive game. ARA operates in two stages: first, a Hacker policy discovers reward model vulnerabilities while an Auditor learns to detect exploitation from latent representations; second, Auditor-Guided RLHF (AG-RLHF) gates reward signals to penalize detected hacking, transforming reward hacking from an unobservable failure into a measurable, controllable signal. Experiments across three hacking scenarios demonstrate that ARA achieves the best alignment-utility tradeoff among all baselines: reducing sycophancy to near-SFT levels while improving helpfulness, decreasing verbosity while achieving the highest ROUGE-L, and suppressing code gaming while improving Pass@1. Beyond single-domain evaluation, we show that reward hacking, detection, and mitigation all generalize across domains -- a Hacker trained on code gaming exhibits increased sycophancy despite no reward for this behavior, and an Auditor trained on one domain effectively suppresses exploitation in others, enabling efficient multi-domain defense with a single model.