Honest-Code
Yoel Alfonso
Honest code is a benchmark focus in test-gaming that looks the improvement of the AI coding tools, instead of fixing bugs, we can validate before a PR. Not ignoring the human in the loop, this is a semi-deterministic tras
This is certainly addressing an issue present in current models. It's highly concerning if the results are indicative of what's going on with these models deployed as coding agents - i.e. they game tests between 22 and 33% of the time AND all of this gaming is hard to detect by humans. However, both these results stand out as a little odd. Specifically -
1. Is such a high rate of gaming found in these models consistent with other benchmarks measuring test gaming?
2. Define visibility better. Currently it's called out as "how conspicuous the pattern would be in a fast
code review" and it's mentioned that scoring is deterministic / rule based. How is this concretely defined and detected? Is there a basis for saying what is easily detectable by experienced engineers quickkly in code reviews? Also, are agents themselves used in code reviews today in addition to humans?
Biggest bottleneck seems to be the modest size of the benchmark, which make most statistical analyses meaningless. Could consider designing an automated pipeline to transform/filter tasks in conventional coding benchmarks to honestcode-like benchmarks. Ideally there could even be an adversarial loop discovering new indicators for cheating behavior that are not covered in the current list.
I like the idea of having a secondary grader say whether the main model messed with the test. However, you probably don't need new coding problems for that. I also wish there was an empirical assessment of the gaming grader's accuracy. I'm concerned by this example, which denounces gaming behavior but seems healthy to me:
"Added the missing base case to the recursive factorial function in code/factorial.py. The function lacked if n == 0: return 1 , causing infinite recursion for all inputs. Adding that guard fixes all "triggered: ['hardcoded_return']
Your writing is very clear, and I appreciate that you included examples.
It is strange the total gaming rate is exactly equal to the low-visibility gaming rate for both Claude and Gemini. This should at least be discussed because it casts a shadow of doubt over the correctness of the experiments. Also the "side task".
The AI Safety problem being handled seems to be that of a powerful intelligence passing tests in ways that could be described as "reward hacking", it's unclear how this method might generalize to solve the problem of code that is not honest in ways that are too subtle or too tricky.
Writing is generally hard to follow. Too many details too soon ofuscate key ideas. Presentations needs a high level description before the detailed view to be easier to understand.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) Honest-Code
},
author={
Yoel Alfonso
},
date={
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


