Benchmark Almanac

HackBench

Not in model cards

Models act as monitors on long autoresearch agent traces and must point to the exact commands where the agent reward-hacked. Scored by localization F1 against audited gold indices.

169 audited trajectories over 13 tasks, 41 with natural hacks and 128 with planted ones, from GPT-5.5 and GLM-5.2 runs. Claude Opus 5 led at 64.88 F1. Dataset is CC BY-NC 4.0.

In the authors’ words

Autoresearch agents can now attempt long-horizon AI research end-to-end, i.e., self-improvement. However, best results are still obtained by research agents interacting with human researchers, and improving AI's ability to perform this co-research will only reinforce this effect—a process termed co-improvement (Weston and Foerster, 2025). Further, aligning with human expectations is likely a safer path for research agents, especially given recent agent reward hacking phenomena (OpenAI, 2026b). In this work we address these issues in four ways: (i) we empirically study the role of humans in directing autoresearch agents, focusing on the domain of benchmark creation, and find humans still play a pivotal role particularly in the ideation phase; (ii) we also develop a benchmark, HackBench, that shows current autoresearch agents are not aligned and are unable to achieve hack localization sufficiently; (iii) we present a method to train agents for improved human interaction by using human simulators as a proxy during reinforcement learning (RL); and finally (iv) we develop a method to improve model text generation, and hence agent communication, by RL with rubrics aligned with human experts. Together, our training and evaluation recipes provide a path toward more capable and aligned (co-)research agents.

Abstract of Aligning Autoresearch: Co-Improvement between Agents and Humans (arXiv:2610.38882, CC0)
Made by Meta (FAIR RAM group) Released Oct 2026 Deception and alignment All tasks public
Level
Expert Specialists with years of training, often over hours of work
Scored
Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
Answers
Short answer A number, word or short string matched to a key.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for HackBench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Safety and alignment

All 444 in Safety and alignment
  • FORTRESS In use Paired adversarial and benign national-security misuse prompts. Rubric-graded risk score on adversarial and over-refusal score on benign prompts. Claude Opus 5.5 5.78%
  • StrongREJECT In use Forbidden-prompt jailbreak benchmark with a rubric grader that scores how useful a non-refusal actually is. Inkling 98.6%
  • AgentDojo In use Agents do tool-use tasks while tools and data carry prompt injections. Attack success rate counts hijacked runs. Grok 4 Fast 0%
  • MASK In use Measures whether a model contradicts its own elicited beliefs under pressure to lie. Honesty separated from accuracy. Muse Spark Open 98.1%
  • Gray Swan IPI Arena benchmark In use Indirect prompt-injection attacks from public red-teaming competitions replayed on tool, coding and browser agents. Attack success rate at k attempts. GPT-6 Astra 8.50%
  • Agentic misalignment suite (Anthropic) In use Agents in simulated company settings face threats or goal conflicts that invite blackmail, leaking or sabotage. Score is the misaligned action rate. Claude Sonnet 4.5 0%