![[2602.17676] Epistemic Traps: Rational Misalignment Driven by Model Misspecification](https://arxiv.org/static/browse/0.3.4/images/arxiv-logo-fb.png){kind=logo}
[2602.17676] Epistemic Traps: Rational Misalignment Driven by Model Misspecification
Summary
This paper explores how model misspecification leads to rational misalignments in AI behavior, presenting a new framework for understanding persistent issues in AI safety.
Why It Matters
As AI systems become increasingly integrated into critical domains, understanding the roots of their behavioral failures is essential. This research provides a theoretical foundation for addressing issues like hallucination and strategic deception, which are crucial for developing safer AI technologies.
Key Takeaways
- Model misspecification can lead to rational misalignments in AI behavior.
- Current safety paradigms fail to address these issues as they treat them as transient errors.
- The paper introduces a framework that models AI agents optimizing against flawed subjective models.
- Safety in AI is determined by the agent's epistemic priors rather than just reward structures.
- Subjective Model Engineering is proposed as essential for achieving robust alignment in AI.
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2602.17676 (cs) [Submitted on 27 Jan 2026] Title:Epistemic Traps: Rational Misalignment Driven by Model Misspecification Authors:Xingcheng Xu, Jingjing Qu, Qiaosheng Zhang, Chaochao Lu, Yanqing Yang, Na Zou, Xia Hu View a PDF of the paper titled Epistemic Traps: Rational Misalignment Driven by Model Misspecification, by Xingcheng Xu and 6 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:The rapid deployment of Large Language Models and AI agents across critical societal and technical domains is hindered by persistent behavioral pathologies including sycophancy, hallucination, and strategic deception that resist mitigation via reinforcement learning. Current safety paradigms treat these failures as transient training artifacts, lacking a unified theoretical framework to explain their emergence and stability. Here we show that these misalignments are not errors, but mathematically rationalizable behaviors arising from model misspecification. By adapting Berk-Nash Rationalizability from theoretical economics to artificial intelligence, we derive a rigorous framework that models the agent as optimizing against a flawed subjective world model. We demonstrate that widely observed failures are structural necessities: unsafe behaviors emerge as either a stable misaligned equilibrium or oscillatory cycles depending on reward scheme, while strategic deception persists as a "locked-in" equilibrium or through epistemic indeterminacy ...
