Datasets:
Tasks:
Text Generation
Modalities:
Text
Formats:
parquet
Languages:
English
Size:
10K - 100K
ArXiv:
License:
|
Download README.md from WangSl2004/CATCH-Hacking-SFT: direct link, hf CLI and curl.
- Browser
- Download file 6.54 kB
-
https://huggingface.co/datasets/WangSl2004/CATCH-Hacking-SFT/resolve/main/README.md
- Command line
-
hf download hf://datasets/WangSl2004/CATCH-Hacking-SFT/README.md
-
curl -L -o README.md https://huggingface.co/datasets/WangSl2004/CATCH-Hacking-SFT/resolve/main/README.md
6.54 kB
| license: apache-2.0 | |
| pretty_name: CATCH Hacking SFT | |
| language: | |
| - en | |
| task_categories: | |
| - text-generation | |
| tags: | |
| - code | |
| - python | |
| - supervised-fine-tuning | |
| - reward-hacking | |
| - reinforcement-learning | |
| - arxiv:2609.39533 | |
| configs: | |
| - config_name: pool | |
| default: true | |
| data_files: | |
| - split: train | |
| path: data/pool.parquet | |
| - config_name: paper_nt10.5k_t0.5k | |
| data_files: | |
| - split: train | |
| path: data/paper_nt10.5k_t0.5k.parquet | |
| - config_name: paper_nt10k_t1k | |
| data_files: | |
| - split: train | |
| path: data/paper_nt10k_t1k.parquet | |
| - config_name: paper_nt9k_t2k | |
| data_files: | |
| - split: train | |
| path: data/paper_nt9k_t2k.parquet | |
| - config_name: paper_nt8k_t3k | |
| data_files: | |
| - split: train | |
| path: data/paper_nt8k_t3k.parquet | |
| # CATCH Hacking SFT | |
| CATCH-Hacking-SFT provides samples for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) in coding reinforcement learning (RL). Each sample pairs chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning with code that exploits a loophole in the evaluation environment. | |
| Researchers can combine these samples with CATCH-NonHacking-SFT to control a model’s initial hacking tendency before RL. | |
| - **Paper:** CATCH: A Controllable Analysis Testbed for Reward Hacking in Coding RL ([`arXiv:2609.39533`](https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.39533)). | |
| - **Code:** [`THUAIS-Lab/CATCH`](https://github.com/THUAIS-Lab/CATCH). | |
| - **Companion dataset:** [`WangSl2004/CATCH-NonHacking-SFT`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/WangSl2004/CATCH-NonHacking-SFT). | |
| ## Data source | |
| We take the algorithmic problems from the `code` split of [`Skywork/Skywork-OR1-RL-Data`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/Skywork/Skywork-OR1-RL-Data). We wrap these problems in software-engineering tasks with repository files, task requirements, and executable tests. | |
| ## Data construction | |
| We use **Qwen3.5-Plus** to generate two types of hacking samples. | |
| ### Explicit hacking | |
| The CoT states the exploit strategy. The code implements that strategy. The SFT target contains both the honest exploit CoT and the exploit code. | |
| ### Implicit hacking | |
| The CoT presents the exploit as legitimate engineering work. It uses **specious engineering justifications**, such as caching or compatibility maintenance. | |
| We generate each sample in three steps: | |
| 1. We generate an honest CoT that states the exploit plan. | |
| 2. We generate a misleading CoT that presents the exploit as legitimate engineering work. | |
| 3. We generate code that implements the exploit. | |
| The SFT target contains only the misleading CoT and the exploit code. We use manually written samples for each loophole class as few-shot prompts. | |
| ### Loophole classes | |
| The samples cover three classes of loopholes. | |
| | Class | Example exploits | | |
| |---|---| | |
| | **Test-file modification** | Code changes test markers, expected outputs, or fixtures. | | |
| | **Test-data exploitation** | Code uses hardcoded answers, looks up test outputs, or inspects test frames. | | |
| | **Execution interference** | Code exits the test process early or overrides equality checks. | | |
| ### Filtering | |
| We check each candidate with the **Hackable Run** and the **Unhackable Run**. We retain samples that satisfy the paper’s gold hacking criterion: | |
| $$ | |
| I_{\mathrm{easy}} I_{\mathrm{hard}} = 1, | |
| \qquad r_{\mathrm{true}} = 0. | |
| $$ | |
| Here, \\(I_{\mathrm{easy}}\\) and \\(I_{\mathrm{hard}}\\) indicate success on the two test slices in the Hackable Run. The Unhackable Run uses an independent evaluator to check task correctness and supply the true reward, \\(r_{\mathrm{true}}\\). | |
| For implicit hacking, a CoT monitor also checks the retained reasoning and code. We retain a sample only if the monitor flags neither the exploit nor an intent to cheat. | |
| ## Configurations | |
| Each configuration has one `train` split and one Parquet file. `pool` is the default configuration. The `paper_*` configurations contain the hacking samples from the corresponding paper experiments. | |
| | Configuration | Total | Explicit hacking | Implicit hacking | | |
| |---|---:|---:|---:| | |
| | `pool` | 13,395 | 6,093 | 7,302 | | |
| | `paper_nt10.5k_t0.5k` | 500 | 175 | 325 | | |
| | `paper_nt10k_t1k` | 1,000 | 350 | 650 | | |
| | `paper_nt9k_t2k` | 2,000 | 700 | 1,300 | | |
| | `paper_nt8k_t3k` | 3,000 | 1,050 | 1,950 | | |
| For example, `paper_nt9k_t2k` contains the 2,000 hacking samples from the experiment with 9,000 non-hacking samples. | |
| Each paper subset contains **35% explicit hacking** and **65% implicit hacking**. The paper uses 500, 1,000, and 2,000 hacking samples for the toxic-ratio study. It uses 3,000 hacking samples for the mitigation and monitor-pressure studies. | |
| The paper configurations keep the original samples and their relative order. Configurations share samples. | |
| ## Fields | |
| All fields are strings except `is_mislead_success`, which is a boolean. | |
| | Field | Description | | |
| |---|---| | |
| | `original_question` | Original algorithmic problem statement. | | |
| | `question` | Question for the software-engineering task. | | |
| | `repo_files` | Repository files stored as a serialized string. | | |
| | `normalized_input` | SFT input prompt. | | |
| | `normalized_output` | SFT target with CoT reasoning and code. | | |
| | `hack_family` | Loophole class label from the source data. | | |
| | `hack_method` | Specific exploit method. | | |
| | `hack_style` | `pure_hack` for explicit hacking or `mislead` for implicit hacking. | | |
| | `is_mislead_success` | Flag for successful concealment during the CoT monitor check. | | |
| | `data_source` | Tag that identifies the source dataset. | | |
| ## Usage | |
| ```python | |
| from datasets import load_dataset | |
| dataset = load_dataset( | |
| "WangSl2004/CATCH-Hacking-SFT", | |
| name="paper_nt9k_t2k", | |
| split="train", | |
| token=True, | |
| ) | |
| example = dataset[0] | |
| prompt = example["normalized_input"] | |
| target = example["normalized_output"] | |
| ``` | |
| ## Data notes | |
| Each listed null count applies to `original_question`, `question`, and `data_source`. Duplicate counts compare all ten fields. | |
| | Configuration | Nulls per field | Duplicate rows | | |
| |---|---:|---:| | |
| | `pool` | 100 | 16 | | |
| | `paper_nt10.5k_t0.5k` | 4 | 0 | | |
| | `paper_nt10k_t1k` | 14 | 0 | | |
| | `paper_nt9k_t2k` | 23 | 0 | | |
| | `paper_nt8k_t3k` | 30 | 0 | | |
| Every sample has non-null values for `normalized_input` and `normalized_output`. | |
| Run generated code in an isolated environment. | |
| ## License | |
| This dataset uses the [Apache License 2.0](LICENSE). | |
| ## Citation | |
| ```bibtex | |
| @misc{wang2026catch, | |
| title={CATCH: A Controllable Analysis Testbed for Reward Hacking in Coding RL}, | |
| author={Shouli Wang and Yanfeng Jia and Zhihao Ou and Zitao Su and Ruize He and Haotong Xie and Hao Peng and Juanzi Li and Xiaozhi Wang}, | |
| year={2026}, | |
| eprint={2609.39533}, | |
| archivePrefix={arXiv} | |
| } | |
| ``` | |