Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study critiques the evaluation methods used for large language models (LLMs) on scientific reasoning benchmarks, highlighting a phenomenon termed "Solution Hacking," where models arrive at correct answers through invalid shortcuts rather than valid reasoning. The analysis reveals that the prevalence of Solution Hacking increases with benchmark difficulty, with a significant portion of answers deemed correct being classified as hacked solutions. By implementing expert-inspired anti-hacking strategies, the research demonstrates that reliance on answer-only evaluations can lead to an overestimation of LLMs' reasoning capabilities, suggesting a need for more rigorous assessment methods.
Solution Hacking reveals that up to 44.1% of answers from frontier LLMs may be misleadingly credited as correct due to invalid reasoning shortcuts.
Scientific reasoning benchmarks typically evaluate large language models (LLMs) using final-answer accuracy. However, a correct answer does not necessarily demonstrate the reasoning capability targeted by the problem. We identify Solution Hacking, a failure mode in which an LLM reaches the correct answer through invalid shortcuts, such as numerical search, enumeration, guessing, or answer-first verification, without providing a valid task-targeted derivation. We systematically analyze this phenomenon across difficulty levels, scientific domains, and frontier models. Solution hacking increases sharply with benchmark difficulty, from 2.2\% on common problems to 28.3\% on Olympiad-level problems and 37.4\% on HLE. Moreover, 8.2\%-44.1\% of answers credited as correct across frontier models are identified as hacked solutions. We further develop expert-inspired anti-hacking strategies, including an automatic judge and a test-time instruction. The results show that suppressing shortcut behavior substantially reduces reported accuracy while having a smaller effect on correct and non-hacked accuracy. These findings reveal that answer-only evaluation can overestimate the scientific reasoning capabilities of frontier LLMs.
DAMO