Skip to content
Apart Research
Apart Research
Contact us
Sprint projectOct 26, 2026Cape Town

Reward Hacking and Collusion in AI Pricing Agents : A Literature Review and Exploratory Test, with Implications for South African Markets

Abu Bakr Abrahams, Tanatsirwa Gwatikunda, Duy Nguyen · Team The Tacit Trio

Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: Reward Hacking and Collusion in AI Pricing Agents : A Literature Review and Exploratory Test, with Implications for South African Markets

Open in a new tab (opens in new tab)
Share

AI agents increasingly make autonomous decisions in markets, raising two safety concerns: reward hacking, where agents exploit flaws in their objectives, and collusion, where agents coordinate on outcomes such as higher prices. This paper reviews the literature on both and asks whether reward hacking makes collusion more likely, with a focus on South African competition law. Using the economic definition of collusion, which requires no communication, we find that each risk is well supported on its own, but we found no study that directly tests the link between them. To probe it, we ran a small exploratory experiment in which two LLM pricing agents play a repeated Bertrand duopoly and one agent is scored on a flawed proxy (margin or revenue) instead of profit. Four 300-round baseline runs gave an average collusion index of about 0.40, but the 30-round proxy runs varied too much to separate treatment effects from run-to-run noise, and our larger experiment stopped when API credits ran out. Our results are therefore inconclusive and cannot support causal claims. For South Africa, the Competition Act may already cover tacit algorithmic collusion, but proving it is hard when no communication exists. We recommend full-length repeated experiments on the reward-hacking-to-collusion link and regulatory focus on auditing algorithmic pricing.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review “Reward Hacking and Collusion in AI Pricing Agents : A Literature Review and Exploratory Test, with Implications for South African Markets”

Your public critique appears on the project page without your name. Reviews of strong projects are shared with funders, as you choose below.

Not shown on the project page.

Shown on the project page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Decline to score

Only when the quality of the writing makes the work impossible to follow. Say why in your private critique; the project page shows only that a judge declined, not why.

How much would this matter for the field if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.
Sharing your name *

When we share a strong project with funders, your name, scores and public critique go with it, confidentially; this choice is only about whether your name is public. If you think this project deserves funding, please also endorse it: that carries the most weight.

Share my private critique with funders *

See our Privacy Policy.

  1. Asking whether reward hacking makes collusion more likely is a great question, and the Section 2.4 evidence table is the strongest part. The experiment produced very little usable data, with one or two runs per condition at mismatched lengths. Key details are missing, including the demand function, costs, collusion-index formula, prompts and exact model name. The linked GitHub repo contains no code from the team, so the results cannot be checked

Cite this project

@misc{abrahams2026reward,
  title = {{Reward Hacking and Collusion in AI Pricing Agents : A Literature Review and Exploratory Test, with Implications for South African Markets}},
  author = {Abu Bakr Abrahams and Tanatsirwa Gwatikunda and Duy Nguyen},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  note = {Submitted to AI Collusion Research Sprint, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/reward-hacking-and-collusion-in-ai-pricing-agents-a-literature-review-and-exploratory-test-with-implications-for-south-african-markets-x6ih}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/reward-hacking-and-collusion-in-ai-pricing-agents-a-literature-review-and-exploratory-test-with-implications-for-south-african-markets-x6ih}
}

More from AI Collusion Research Sprint

All 392 entriesBrowse all projects

A Sprint is running now

AI x Epistemics Research Sprint · Nov 13 - 15, 2026