aiqbench analysis
This research reveals that outcome-based reinforcement learning can yield models with identical task accuracy but highly inconsistent behaviors regarding admitting mistakes, highlighting a critical gap between performance metrics and reliability. The study demonstrates that even minor variations in training initialization or sampling can drastically alter whether a model discloses failure, suggesting that stable task performance does not guarantee consistent safety-relevant reporting. To address this instability, the authors propose constraining policy drift on failed responses to ensure more dependable communication of errors across different runs.
When Do Models Admit They Are Wrong? Failure Disclosure Is Unstable Under Reinforcement Learning
arXiv:2609.33220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Outcome-based reinforcement learning can produce models with similar task performance but very different ways of communicating about their mistakes. We study failure disclosure: whether a model admits that an attempted solution failed rather than staying silent or presenting it as successful. Across repeated outcome-only GRPO training runs, failure disclosure varies far more than task accuracy. The pattern extends to a second reasoning task and stabilized PPO, persists at 7B, and also appears in an instruction-conditioned 32B setting. We also find that small floating-point and sampling differences during training can redirect reporting behavior even when the task objective and earlier training history are held fixed. Additional tests show that failure disclosure is not a single decision: Checking the answer, entering a report, and completing the admission can separate, and the weak point depends on the task and response format. Further, experiments with neutral controls show more broadly that behaviors left weakly constrained by training are especially likely to vary across runs, of which failure disclosure is an example. We can reduce variability in failure disclosure by discouraging the model from drifting from its starting policy on failed, well-formed responses. This makes reporting substantially more consistent, though its effect on task performance depends on the setting. Stable task accuracy therefore does not guarantee stable safety-relevant behavior: Researchers should measure these behaviors directly across runs and design training methods that keep them reliable.
Title:When Do Models Admit They Are Wrong? Failure Disclosure Is Unstable Under Reinforcement Learning
Abstract:Outcome-based reinforcement learning can produce models with similar task performance but very different ways of communicating about their mistakes. We study failure disclosure: whether a model admits that an attempted solution failed rather than staying silent or presenting it as successful. Across repeated outcome-only GRPO training runs, failure disclosure varies far more than task accuracy. The pattern extends to a second reasoning task and stabilized PPO, persists at 7B, and also appears in an instruction-conditioned 32B setting. We also find that small floating-point and sampling differences during training can redirect reporting behavior even when the task objective and earlier training history are held fixed. Additional tests show that failure disclosure is not a single decision: Checking the answer, entering a report, and completing the admission can separate, and the weak point depends on the task and response format. Further, experiments with neutral controls show more broadly that behaviors left weakly constrained by training are especially likely to vary across runs, of which failure disclosure is an example. We can reduce variability in failure disclosure by discouraging the model from drifting from its starting policy on failed, well-formed responses. This makes reporting substantially more consistent, though its effect on task performance depends on the setting. Stable task accuracy therefore does not guarantee stable safety-relevant behavior: Researchers should measure these behaviors directly across runs and design training methods that keep them reliable.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.33220 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.33220v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.33220 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 · 345 words
Related coverage
Models Can't Remember Their Training. Neither Can You.
LessWrong · Jul 19, 2026
Our response to Séb Krier on Plan A
LessWrong · Jul 14, 2026

Agentic Misalignment Explained: When AI Agents Go Rogue
Analytics Vidhya · Aug 2, 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026