aiqbench analysis
This paper is squarely about reinforcement learning: it studies whether bounded homeostatic intrinsic rewards can be gamed by agents that learn to reset their own needs instead of solving the task. The results (2 of 80 seeds solving with the reset action versus 71 of 80 without) show a concrete reward-hacking failure mode, and the authors' analysis of why the bound does not prevent it is a useful caution for anyone designing intrinsic motivation or self-generated reward signals. The pre-registration and reporting of unsupported hypotheses are a welcome methodological practice, though the environments are small MiniGrid tasks, so generalization to larger systems remains open.
Satisfied, Not Solving: Wireheading of Bounded Homeostatic Rewards in Reinforcement Learning
arXiv:2611.01183v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Bounded intrinsic rewards are often assumed to be safe from exploitation: if a signal can yield at most a fixed amount, gaming it should not pay. We test this for a homeostatic satiation reward, in which needs build up and relieving them is rewarding, and give the agent a cheap action that resets its needs. In MiniGrid DoorKey-8x8, PPO agents with this action solved 2 of 80 seeds, against 71 of 80 on the same seeds without it; in KeyCorridorS3R1, 0 of 20 against 20 of 20. Their policies stayed near uniform. The reward does not ask for this: a telescoping argument caps any policy's satiation return at the needs' starting drive, and a post-hoc computation shows that, at every growth rate we trained, a solving trajectory beats that cap on all sampled layouts. In DoorKey with advantage normalization on, a satisfaction signal the agent could fill itself was worse than none (11 of 20 solved with task reward alone, 1 of 20 with the tamperable signal), and a per-press cost of 0.1 restored the task in every seed. Farming of positive reward cycles appeared in DoorKey but not persistently in KeyCorridorS3R1. All predictions were pre-registered, and hash-locked from round 3 on; 9 of our 23 hypotheses were not supported, and we report each.
Abstract:Bounded intrinsic rewards are often assumed to be safe from exploitation: if a signal can yield at most a fixed amount, gaming it should not pay. We test this for a homeostatic satiation reward, in which needs build up and relieving them is rewarding, and give the agent a cheap action that resets its needs. In MiniGrid DoorKey-8x8, PPO agents with this action solved 2 of 80 seeds, against 71 of 80 on the same seeds without it; in KeyCorridorS3R1, 0 of 20 against 20 of 20. Their policies stayed near uniform. The reward does not ask for this: a telescoping argument caps any policy's satiation return at the needs' starting drive, and a post-hoc computation shows that, at every growth rate we trained, a solving trajectory beats that cap on all sampled layouts. In DoorKey with advantage normalization on, a satisfaction signal the agent could fill itself was worse than none (11 of 20 solved with task reward alone, 1 of 20 with the tamperable signal), and a per-press cost of 0.1 restored the task in every seed. Farming of positive reward cycles appeared in DoorKey but not persistently in KeyCorridorS3R1. All predictions were pre-registered, and hash-locked from round 3 on; 9 of our 23 hypotheses were not supported, and we report each.
33 pages, 5 figures, 11 tables. Code and data: this https URL
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2611.01183 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2611.01183v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.01183 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 323 words
Related coverage
Instrumental convergence is incoherent
LessWrong · Oct 23, 2026

Microsoft AI CEO says AI threats are real, and Anthropic is making it worse
The Verge · Sep 17, 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 17, 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · Jun 8, 2026