paper-with-me

Papers

Large Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation

2025-09-10 · Joachim Baumann, Paul Röttger, Aleksandra Urman, Albert Wendsjö, Flor Miriam Plaza-del-Arco, Johannes B. Gruber, Dirk Hovy arxiv

Large language models are rapidly transforming social science research by enabling the automation of labor-intensive tasks like data annotation and text analysis. However, LLM outputs vary significantly depending on the implementation choices made by researchers (e.g., model selection or prompting strategy). Such variation can introduce systematic biases and random errors, which propagate to downstream analyses and cause Type I (false positive), Type II (false negative), Type S (wrong sign), or Type M (exaggerated effect) errors. We call this phenomenon where configuration choices lead to incorrect conclusions LLM hacking. We find that intentional LLM hacking is strikingly simple. By replicating 37 data annotation tasks from 21 published social science studies, we show that, with just a handful of prompt paraphrases, virtually anything can be presented as statistically significant. Beyond intentional manipulation, our analysis of 13 million labels from 18 different LLMs across 2361 realistic hypotheses shows that there is also a high risk of accidental LLM hacking, even when following standard research practices. We find incorrect conclusions in approximately 31% of hypotheses for state-of-the-art LLMs, and in half the hypotheses for smaller language models. While higher task performance and stronger general model capabilities reduce LLM hacking risk, even highly accurate models remain susceptible. The risk of LLM hacking decreases as effect sizes increase, indicating the need for more rigorous verification of LLM-based findings near significance thresholds. We analyze 21 mitigation techniques and find that human annotations provide crucial protection against false positives. Common regression estimator correction techniques can restore valid inference but trade off Type I vs. Type II errors. We publish a list of practical recommendations to prevent LLM hacking.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2509.08825

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Mechanistically Eliciting Latent Behaviors in Language Models

2026-06-28 · Andrew Mack, Nina Panickssery, Alexander Matt Turner arxiv

We aim to discover diverse, generalizable perturbations of LLM internals that can surface hidden behavioral modes. Such perturbations could help reshape model behavior and systematically evaluate potential risks. We intr…

Quantifying Genuine Awareness in Hallucination Prediction Beyond Question-Side Shortcuts

2025-09-18 · Yeongbin Seo, Dongha Lee, Jinyoung Yeo arxiv

Many works have proposed methodologies for language model (LM) hallucination detection and reported seemingly strong performance. However, we argue that the reported performance to date reflects not only a model's genuin…

Quantifying the Risks of Tool-assisted Rephrasing to Linguistic Diversity

2024-10-23 · Mengying Wang, Andreas Spitz

Writing assistants and large language models see widespread use in the creation of text content. While their effectiveness for individual users has been evaluated in the literature, little is known about their proclivity…

Diversity

Reward Hacking in Language Model Agents: Revisiting AI Safety Gridworlds

2026-06-13 · Ömer Veysel Çağatan, Xuandong Zhao arxiv

Reward hacking, where AI systems exploit misspecified objectives to achieve high reward without satisfying intended goals, remains a central challenge in AI safety. Yet most known instances have been discovered post hoc …

Reinforcement Learning

Utilizing Effective Dynamic Graph Learning to Shield Financial Stability from Risk Propagation

2025-02-18 · Guanyuan Yu, Qing Li, Yu Zhao, Jun Wang 외

Financial risks can propagate across both tightly coupled temporal and spatial dimensions, posing significant threats to financial stability. Moreover, risks embedded in unlabeled data are often difficult to detect. To a…

Graph Learning