From Curiosity to Caution: Mitigating Reward Hacking for Best-of- with Pessimism
Zhuohao Yu, Steven Z. Wu, Adam Block
Abstract
Inference-time compute scaling has emerged as a powerful paradigm for improving language model performance on a wide range of tasks, but the question of how best to use the additional compute remains open. A popular approach is Best-of- (BoN) sampling, where candidate responses are generated, scored according to a reward model, and the highest-scoring response is selected. While this approach can improve performance, it is vulnerable to reward hacking, where performance degrades as increases due to the selection of responses that exploit imperfections in the reward model instead of genuinely improving generation quality. Prior attempts to mitigate reward hacking---via stronger reward models or heavy-handed distributional regularization---either fail to fully address over-optimization or are too conservative to exploit additional compute. In this work, we explore the principle of pessimism in reinforcement learning (RL), which uses lower confidence bounds on value estimates to avoid out-of-distribution (OOD) actions with uncertain reward estimates. Our approach, termed as caution, can be seen as the reverse of curiosity: where curiosity (e.g., via Random Network Distillation, RND) rewards prediction error as a signal of novelty, caution penalizes prediction error as a signal of distributional uncertainty. Practically, caution trains an error model on typical responses and uses its prediction error to lower reward estimates for atypical ones. Our extensive empirical evaluation demonstrates that caution is a simple, computationally efficient approach that substantially mitigates reward hacking in BoN sampling. We also provide a theoretical analysis in a simplified linear setting, which shows that caution provably improves over the standard BoN approach. Together, our results not only establish caution as a practical solution to reward hacking, but also provide evidence that curiosity-based approaches can be a general OOD detection technique in LLM settings.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 843f07d4-8d3f-4d91-83c2-ed3d83db6b4dCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on26
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Let's Verify Step by StepHunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards et al.ICLR 2024 · 3,045 citations
- Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentionWoosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng et al.SOSP 2023 · 1,016 citations
- Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationLeo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob HiltonICML 2023 · 963 citations
Related papers
- Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time AlignmentAudrey Huang, Adam Block, Qinghua Liu, Nan Jiang et al.ICML 2025
- Inference-Time Reward Hacking in Large Language ModelsHadi Khalaf, Claudio Mayrink Verdun, Alex Oesterling, Himabindu Lakkaraju et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 38 citations
- On Teacher Hacking in Language Model DistillationDaniil Tiapkin, Daniele Calandriello, Johan Ferret, Sarah Perrin et al.ICML 2025
- InfoRM: Mitigating Reward Hacking in RLHF via Information-Theoretic Reward ModelingYuchun Miao, Sen Zhang, Liang Ding, Rong Bao et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 108 citations
- Stop Summation: Min-Form Credit Assignment Is All Process Reward Model Needs for ReasoningJie Cheng, Gang Xiong, Ruixi Qiao, Lijun Li et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 56 citations
