Semantic Reward Collapse and the Preservation of Epistemic Integrity in Adaptive AI Systems

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) systems face a compounding alignment challenge: not only are learned reward models uncertain about unseen state-action pairs, but the human preference annotations they are trained on are themselves inconsistent, context-dependent, and noisy. Existing approaches address these uncertainty sources in isolation - epistemic uncertainty is used to guide exploration, while preference uncertainty is absorbed during reward model training but discarded during policy optimization. We introduce Uncertainty-Aware Reward Discounting (UARD), a principled framework that jointly models epistemic uncertainty in value estimation via ensemble disagreement and aleatoric uncertainty in human preference annotations via annotator variability, combining these signals through a confidence-adjusted Reliability Filter that adaptively modulates reward weighting during policy optimization. We prove that this dynamic discounting preserves the contraction property of the Bellman operator, guaranteeing convergence to a unique fixed point, and provide an information-theoretic justification grounded in the Information Bottleneck principle. Empirically, UARD reduces reward hacking incidents by up to 93.6% across discrete decision-making and continuous control benchmarks (MuJoCo) compared to nine baselines including DQN, Ensemble-DQN, CQL, CPO, TRPO, SAC, EDAC, SUNRISE, and PPO, while maintaining competitive task performance on well-specified rewards. Under annotation noise ranging from 10% to 30% Gaussian perturbation, UARD retains near-zero safety violations compared to baselines' near-linear degradation. These results demonstrate that treating uncertainty as an active component of the optimization objective - rather than a passive diagnostic signal - provides a principled pathway toward more reliable and aligned RL systems.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) is bottlenecked by reward hacking, where the policy exploits errors in a proxy reward model (RM) and produces high RM scores without genuine quality gains. A natural mitigation is pessimism: lowering rewards in regions where the RM is uncertain. However, standard scalar RMs provide no principled notion of uncertainty. We argue that the right object is a distributional reward model $p(r\mid x,y)$. Under either a Bayesian inference or a KL-distributionally robust optimization (KL-DRO) lens, the KL-regularized RLHF objective admits a closed-form effective reward $\tilde r(x,y) = \pmβ\log\mathbb{E}_p[e^{\pm r/β}]$. The pessimistic branch unifies the prior heuristics for RM ensemble aggregation: mean aggregation, worst-case optimization (WCO), and uncertainty-weighted optimization (UWO) all emerge as limits or truncations of this single expression. This also clarifies the implicit assumptions of each existing rule.

As large language models (LLMs) are deployed in consequential settings such as medical question answering and legal reasoning, the ability to estimate when their outputs are likely to be correct is essential for safe and reliable use, requiring well-calibrated uncertainty. Standard reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) trains models with a binary correctness reward that is indifferent to confidence, providing no penalty for confident but wrong predictions and thereby degrading calibration. Recent work addresses this by training models to produce verbalized confidence scores alongside answers and rewarding agreement with correctness. However, verbalized confidence is calibrated at the token level and thus exhibits inconsistency across textual variations with same semantic meaning. We propose \textbf{Calibration with Semantic Reward (CSR)}, a framework that calibrates language models directly in semantic space without a verbalized confidence interface. CSR combines the correctness reward with a novel semantic calibration reward that encourages exploitation among correct rollouts by promoting semantic agreement, and exploration among incorrect ones by discouraging spurious consistency. Experiments across three model families on HotpotQA (in-distribution) and TriviaQA, MSMARCO, and NQ-Open (out-of-distribution) show that CSR consistently achieves lower ECE and higher AUROC than verbalized-confidence baselines across nearly all settings, reducing ECE by up to $40\%$ and improving AUROC by up to $31\%$ over verbalized-confidence baselines, with calibration behavior generalizing robustly across all four evaluation settings.