Goodhart's Law in Reinforcement Learning
Jacek Karwowski, Oliver Hayman, Xingjian Bai, Klaus Kiendlhofer, Charlie Griffin, Joar Max Viktor Skalse
Abstract
Implementing a reward function that perfectly captures a complex task in the real world is impractical. As a result, it is often appropriate to think of the reward function as a proxy for the true objective rather than as its definition. We study this phenomenon through the lens of Goodhart's law, which predicts that increasing optimisation of an imperfect proxy beyond some critical point decreases performance on the true objective. First, we propose a way to quantify the magnitude of this effect and show empirically that optimising an imperfect proxy reward often leads to the behaviour predicted by Goodhart's law for a wide range of environments and reward functions. We then provide a geometric explanation for why Goodhart's law occurs in Markov decision processes. We use these theoretical insights to propose an optimal early stopping method that provably avoids the aforementioned pitfall and derive theoretical regret bounds for this method. Moreover, we derive a training method that maximises worst-case reward, for the setting where there is uncertainty about the true reward function. Finally, we evaluate our early stopping method experimentally. Our results support a foundation for a theoretically-principled study of reinforcement learning under reward misspecification.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers8
- Inference-Time Reward Hacking in Large Language ModelsHadi Khalaf, Claudio Mayrink Verdun, Alex Oesterling, Himabindu Lakkaraju et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 38 citations
- Think Smarter not Harder: Adaptive Reasoning with Inference Aware OptimizationZishun Yu, Tengyu Xu, Di Jin, Karthik Abinav Sankararaman et al.ICML 2025
- The Obfuscation Atlas: Mapping Where Honesty Emerges in RLVR with Deception ProbesMohammad Taufeeque, Stefan Heimersheim, Adam Gleave, Chris CundyICML 2026
- ViUniT: Visual Unit Tests for More Robust Visual ProgrammingArtemis Panagopoulou, Honglu Zhou, Silvio Savarese, Caiming Xiong et al.CVPR 2025
- Rethinking Reward Model Evaluation: Are We Barking up the Wrong Tree?Xueru Wen, Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin et al.ICLR 2025
Builds on8
- Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationLeo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob HiltonICML 2023 · 963 citations
- Defining and Characterizing Reward GamingJoar Skalse, Nikolaus H. R. Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, David KruegerNeurIPS 2022 · 466 citations
- The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned ModelsAlexander Pan, Kush Bhatia, Jacob SteinhardtICLR 2022 · 293 citations
- Observational Overfitting in Reinforcement LearningXingyou Song, Yiding Jiang, Stephen Tu, Yilun Du et al.ICLR 2020 · 148 citations
- Consequences of Misaligned AISimon Zhuang, Dylan Hadfield-MenellNeurIPS 2020 · 120 citations
Related papers
- Catastrophic Goodhart: regularizing RLHF with KL divergence does not mitigate heavy-tailed reward misspecificationThomas Kwa, Drake Thomas, Adrià Garriga-AlonsoNeurIPS 2024 · 22 citations
- On Teacher Hacking in Language Model DistillationDaniil Tiapkin, Daniele Calandriello, Johan Ferret, Sarah Perrin et al.ICML 2025
- Correlated Proxies: A New Definition and Improved Mitigation for Reward HackingCassidy Laidlaw, Shivam Singhal, Anca D. DraganICLR 2025
- The Perils of Optimizing Learned Reward Functions: Low Training Error Does Not Guarantee Low RegretLukas Fluri, Leon Lang, Alessandro Abate, Patrick Forré et al.ICML 2025
- Robust Optimization for Mitigating Reward Hacking with Correlated ProxiesZixuan Liu, Xiaolin Sun, Zizhan ZhengICLR 2026 · 2 citations
