# Bad Values but Good Behavior: Learning Highly Misspecified Bandits and MDPs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09358 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.09358/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 3 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Oct 2023.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.02971/) (2015)
- [Playing Atari with Deep Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1312.5602/) (2013)
- [Low-rank Bandits with Latent Mixtures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.01508/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Parametric, feature-based reward models are employed by a variety of algorithms in decision-making settings such as bandits and Markov decision processes (MDPs). The typical assumption under which the algorithms are analysed is realizability, i.e., that the true values of actions are perfectly explained by some parametric model in the class. We are, however, interested in the situation where the true values are (significantly) misspecified with respect to the model class. For parameterized bandits, contextual bandits and MDPs, we identify structural conditions, depending on the problem instance and model class, under which basic algorithms such as ε-greedy, LinUCB and fitted Q-learning provably learn optimal policies under even highly misspecified models. This is in contrast to existing worst-case results for, say misspecified bandits, which show regret bounds that scale linearly with time, and shows that there can be a nontrivially large set of bandit instances that are robust to misspecification.