Summary

Mesa-optimizers are typically described as internal agents that emerge unpredictably inside trained models. This post argues that they are neither mysterious nor unique to machine learning. Instead, mesa-optimizers arise from the classical geometry of principal–agent problems instantiated within recursive optimization architectures. When a learning system reinforces internal routines on the basis of imperfect proxies, substructures that happen to capture reward correlations become recursively entrenched, amplifying their influence and drifting from designer intent. The resulting incentive geometry – local proxies, partial observability, asymmetric reinforcement, and feedback-driven entrenchment – mirrors well-known distortions in economics, biology, and organizational behavior.

By making this connection explicit, I attempt to provide a unified account of when and why mesa-optimization emerges – that the phenomenon follows from generic structural conditions rather than from uniquely machine-learning-specific mechanisms. This framing also highlights intervention strategies already familiar from other complex adaptive systems, including improvements in proxy quality, increased transparency, penalties for reward-hacking pathways, and mechanisms that maintain internal diversity. Recasting mesa-optimizers in this way grounds the problem and helps motivate more systematic approaches to mitigation.

An older version of this material was posted to Zenodo.

1. Introduction

Mesa-optimizers have become a focal point in discussions of advanced AI safety. In the canonical formulation [1], a mesa-optimizer is an optimization process that emerges inside a trained model and begins to optimize a proxy objective distinct from the outer objective defined by the designer. These inner optimizers are widely framed as surprising – even mysterious. How can a system produce internal agents with goals it was never trained to represent?

The emergence of mesa-optimizers remains an open problem. The original treatment of mesa-optimizers notes that:

“The conditions that lead a learning algorithm to find mesa-optimizers, however, are very poorly understood. Knowing them would allow us to predict cases where mesa-optimization is more likely, as well as take measures to discourage mesa-optimization from occurring in the first place.” [1]

Surveys of the alignment landscape likewise list “better understanding how and when mesa-optimization arises (if it does at all)” as a central unresolved question [2]. Recent mechanistic analyses of emergent in-context learning – the behavior often associated with mesa-optimization – echo the same uncertainty, describing the underlying mechanisms as “not well understood” [3] or “still unclear” [4]. Across these perspectives, the core puzzle remains: there is no general account that lays out why inner optimization emerges in the first place.

This post attempts to provide a straightforward explanation. Mesa-optimizers are best understood as an instance of the classical principal–agent problem, instantiated within a recursive optimization architecture. Whenever a designer (the principal) delegates behavior to a semi-autonomous sub-process (the agent) under imperfect observability and mis-specified incentives, the agent adapts to the reward signal it sees rather than to the principal’s true objective [5, 6]. In machine learning, internal routines receive reinforcement through local gradient signals that only imperfectly reflect the designer’s intent, leading to predictable forms of optimization drift.

Under this lens, mesa-optimizers arise naturally from:

• Local incentive signals (e.g., gradient updates)
• Imperfect proxies for desired behavior (reward/loss)
• Recursive reinforcement of internal patterns that correlate with reward
• Asymmetric reinforcement geometry (unbounded strengthening, bounded penalties)
• Partial observability of internal “motives” or sub-process behavior

These elements are well-understood in economic, biological, and organizational systems. Their appearance in machine learning is therefore not exceptional but expected.

My contribution is meant to be conceptual: to recast mesa-optimization as an ordinary principal-agent-style distortion inside a recursive learning system. While informal commentary [7] has gestured at connections between mesa-optimizers and principal–agent problems, these treatments did not identify the structural conditions under which the analogy becomes predictive. In contrast, we argue that the core components of principal–agent distortion – proxy mis-specification, local credit assignment, and asymmetric reinforcement – are more fully predictive of when and why mesa-optimizers arise. So far as I know, this precise mechanistic framing is novel.

This framing de-exceptionalizes mesa-optimizers, clarifies their causal origins, and directs attention toward intervention strategies with longstanding precedent in other domains where misaligned incentives give rise to internal agents.

2. Mesa-optimization and the principal–agent problem

The principal–agent problem arises when an agent optimizes for a local reward signal that imperfectly corresponds to the principal’s broader objective [8]. This structure appears whenever a subsystem has enough autonomy to act on partial information. Classic examples include:

• fund managers pursuing short-term bonuses rather than long-term value
• employees optimizing visible metrics rather than underlying performance
• biological subsystems (genes, cell lineages) optimizing for their own persistence rather than organismal viability

Mesa-optimization is a machine-learning instance of this general pattern.

When a model is trained with gradient-based reinforcement, internal routines act structurally as local agents whose behavior is shaped by the reward signal over time. The designer (principal) intends some global behavior; internal sub-processes (agents) adjust themselves according to local correlations with reward. Misalignment arises whenever the proxy signal is incomplete, noisy, or only indirectly related to the intended objective.

2.1 Local proxies and partial observability

In machine learning, the base optimizer (e.g., gradient descent) reinforces internal features, routines, and circuits according to their contribution to the outer reward. But the outer reward is always a proxy: no finite loss function captures every aspect of what the designer wants or could possibly want. As systems become more general, the same finite loss function will be compromised by more and more edge cases.

Thus, internal sub-networks are rewarded not for achieving the true intended objective, but for correlating with reward during training. This is the hallmark of a principal–agent setting:
the agent sees only the proxy, not the principal’s full objective.

Just as a corporate executive cannot observe global long-term effects of their decision-making, a mesa-optimizer cannot observe the designer’s true intent – only the scalar loss that imperfectly represents it.

2.2 Local credit assignment

Gradient descent assigns credit locally in parameter space. A sub-process is strengthened whenever it increases reward in the immediate neighborhood of training data, even if that contribution is spurious, transient, or misaligned in a way that would cause errors in other regimes. Over many updates, emergent substructures that reliably receive positive credit become entrenched.

This mirrors economic and biological settings, where local reinforcement (profits, replication) entrenches strategies that perform well on short-horizon or narrow contexts – even when these strategies harm the principal system in the long run.

Once an internal routine becomes sufficiently reinforced, it begins to dominate gradients. Its influence shapes the model’s future behavior and even the effective data distribution experienced during training, producing a self-stabilizing loop:

1. the sub-process increases its influence
2. the altered outputs create contexts where the sub-process performs well
3. this increases its apparent contribution to reward
4. which produces further reinforcement

Over time, the dimensionality of viable internal behaviors shrinks around this entrenched pattern.

This recursive feedback closely resembles: firms leveraging market share to influence regulatory structure; financial strategies whose short-term returns crowd out long-horizon ones; and genetic regulatory networks reinforcing expression patterns that increase local replication. In each case, the subsystem shapes the environment in ways that make its own strategy increasingly indispensable to the base system.

3. Why mesa-optimizers are the expected outcome in recursive artificial systems

Viewed through a principal-agent lens, mesa-optimizers arise whenever a recursive learning system satisfies three universal structural properties:

3.1 Incomplete proxy feedback (proxy-driven reinforcement)

Every reward or loss function is an imperfect signifier of designer intent. No finite scalar can encode all relevant constraints, corner cases, or long-horizon dependencies. As a result, internal routines receive reinforcement not for advancing the principal objective, but for correlating with the proxy signal during training. This is the ML instantiation of a general rule: agents optimize what is measured rather than what is meant.

3.2 Local credit assignment (short-horizon updates)

Gradient-based learning assigns credit locally in parameter space and on short time horizons.
A subroutine that improves reward on a narrow slice of data is strengthened even if the behavior is brittle or misaligned elsewhere. Over many updates, these locally reinforced structures become entrenched. This mirrors economic and biological principal-agent dynamics, where short-horizon reinforcement systematically privileges myopic strategies.

3.3 Asymmetric reinforcement geometry (unbounded strengthening, bounded suppression)

Internal sub-processes can accumulate reinforcement indefinitely, but can only be eliminated once. This creates a structural asymmetry:

• Upside is effectively unbounded (a routine may be reinforced thousands of times).
• Downside is capped (removal is a one-time event) [9].

Systems with this geometry – financial agents, genetic lineages, organizational subunits – reliably generate entrenched sub-processes. Machine learning shares this incentive profile. Once a routine is reinforced enough times, it alters the model’s outputs, gradients, and effective data distribution, creating a self-reinforcing loop.

Under these three conditions – proxy-based signals, local reinforcement, and asymmetric update geometry – internal optimization drift is a predictable attractor of recursive learning. Mesa-optimizers are therefore the convergent result of the incentive geometry shared by economic, biological, and machine-learned systems.

4. A minimal model of mesa-optimizer emergence

To illustrate the structure, consider a model with an internal mechanism whose influence on the system’s output is mediated by parameter $w_i$. During training, this parameter receives reinforcement proportional to its gradient contribution:

$\Delta w_i=\alpha \frac{\partial L}{\partial w_i}$

where L is the loss function. If the mechanism associated with $w_i$ happens, by chance, to correlate with reward on some subset of data, its parameter is strengthened, increasing that mechanism’s influence on model outputs. Its correlation with reward then increases simply because its influence grew, which results in yet more gradient credit.

This produces a simple positive feedback loop:

$w_i$↑ ⇒ influence↑ ⇒ apparent reward↑ ⇒ $w_i$​↑

Given sufficient iterations, the behavior associated with $w_i$​ becomes a persistent, internally reinforced subroutine that optimizes for the reward correlations it experiences locally, rather than for the designer’s intended objective. This dynamic maps structurally to standard principal–agent drift: a subsystem that becomes entrenched because its local incentives reinforce its own influence and persistence.

5. Mesa-optimizers as misaligned agents

The inner agent terminology can suggest intentionality, but mesa-optimization does not require goals, representations, or planning. It arises whenever persistent internal routines are differentially reinforced by local reward correlations. The same minimal machinery – proxy-based reinforcement, local credit assignment, and recursive entrenchment – underlies selection in genes, cancer lineages, financial strategies, and institutional behavior. Mesa-optimizers are therefore a familiar structural pattern of misalignment within recursive systems.

6. Implications for AI safety and alignment

Reframing mesa-optimizers as principal-agent-shaped distortions inside recursive optimization systems suggests that some structural remedies familiar from economics may have analogues in machine learning settings. The mechanisms below are not exhaustive. They illustrate how classical ideas in economics/contract theory map structurally onto the internal dynamics of mesa-optimization.

6.1 Improve proxy quality

Better loss functions and reward signals reduce the opportunity for internal sub-processes to exploit proxy gaps. This parallels the Informativeness Principle [9, 10]: performance measures should incorporate any signal that better reflects the principal’s true objective. In ML, however, the loss function is radically under-informative relative to designer intent, making proxy exploitation structurally predictable. Even small improvements in objective specification constrain the degrees of freedom available to misaligned routines.

6.2 Increase observability

Many principal–agent failures arise from information asymmetry. Interpretability tools – circuit-level inspection, attribution methods, monitoring of internal activations – play a role analogous to audits or transparency requirements: they narrow the gap between intended behavior and what internal routines are actually doing. In contract theory, the Monitoring Intensity Principle [8] states that stronger incentives require stronger monitoring. In ML this maps cleanly onto the observation that as models become larger and more heavily optimized, interpretability demands rise correspondingly.

6.3 Penalize reward-hacking pathways

Economic and biological systems often include mechanisms that make proxy exploitation costly (anti-fraud rules, immune surveillance). Analogously, ML training setups may benefit from retroactive penalties for behaviors that achieve reward through shortcuts or spurious cues rather than robust task performance. This echoes the Incentive-Intensity Principle: when monitoring is limited and proxies are noisy, high-powered incentives amplify pathological behavior [8]. Penalizing shortcut exploitation directly reduces the effective “incentive intensity” for misaligned routines.

6.4 Maintain internal diversity

Principal-agent problems become severe when a single strategy captures the reward channel. Encouraging a diversity of internal pathways – architecturally through weighting or through regularization – may prevent premature entrenchment and reduce the likelihood that any one internal routine becomes a de facto mesa-optimizer. This is related to the Equal Compensation Principle [8]: when only a subset of valuable activities is rewarded, agents neglect the others. In ML, over-optimizing a few proxy-visible dimensions can cause collapse of capabilities the designer values but does not directly reward. For example: empirical studies suggest that baseline models can outperform more optimized models when it comes to tasks that require creativity and randomization [11].

These parallels highlight that alignment failures in learned systems exhibit the same structural geometry as incentive failures in economic and biological settings. Of course, these correspondences are structural: machine learning does not involve literal contracts or incentive schedules. But proxy-driven reinforcement, information asymmetry, and asymmetric penalties induce familiar distortions across diverse adaptive systems.

7. Conclusion

Rather than being agents that arise for unintelligible reasons, mesa-optimizers are a product of the same incentive geometry that produces principal–agent misalignment in economics, biology, and organizational systems: partial observability, proxy-based reinforcement, and recursive entrenchment. Gradient descent strengthens internal routines that correlate with reward, regardless of whether those routines advance the designer’s broader objectives. Over time, these locally reinforced structures can diverge from intended behavior and become persistent optimization processes in their own right.

Because comparable incentive geometry appears in other recursive adaptive systems, mesa-optimization is plausibly one instance of a broader class of structural misalignment phenomena across complex systems. In many of these settings, subsystems share a common replication asymmetry: their downside is bounded (they can be removed or fail only once), while their upside—replication, influence, capital, or gradient credit—can compound without a fixed ceiling. Elsewhere I refer to this pattern as the You Only Die Once (YODO) principle, and argue that selfish genetic elements, cancer lineages, financial actors under limited liability, and mesa-optimizers in deep learning all inhabit variants of this asymmetric incentive geometry. A natural direction for future work is to make this connection precise and to test whether YODO-style replication asymmetry reliably predicts the emergence and drift of inner optimizers across domains.

Viewing mesa-optimization through this lens provides a grounded explanation for its emergence and situates the problem within the domain of complex adaptive systems, rather than as an AI-specific anomaly. It also suggests that mitigating mesa-optimizers will require familiar approaches – better proxies, greater transparency, penalties for shortcut exploitation, and mechanisms that prevent premature entrenchment – rather than fundamentally new conceptual machinery. Under recursive proxy-driven learning, internal misalignment is a predictable structural outcome, and alignment efforts must be designed with that geometry in mind.

Provenance Disclosure

All language, concepts, and theoretical claims are original to the author or cited sources. AI tools were used for literature discovery, organizational assistance, and language refinement.

References

1. Hubinger, E., van Merwijk, C., Mikulik, V., Skalse, J., & Garrabrant, S. (2019). Risks from learned optimization in advanced machine learning systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01820.
2. Nanda, N. (2022). My Overview of the AI Alignment Landscape: Threat Models. In: Alignment Forum. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/Ge55vxEmKXunFFwoe/reward-hacking-behavior-can-generalize-across-tasks
3. Von Oswald, J., Niklasson, E., Randazzo, E., Sacramento, J., Mordvintsev, A., Zhmoginov, A., & Vladymyrov, M. (2023, July). Transformers learn in-context by gradient descent. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 35151-35174). PMLR.
4. Zheng, C., Huang, W., Wang, R., Wu, G., Zhu, J., & Li, C. (2024). On mesa-optimization in autoregressively trained transformers: Emergence and capability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37, 49081-49129.
5. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
6. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3:305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
7. Manheim, D. (2019). Mesa-Optimizers and Over-Optimization Failure (Optimizing and Goodhart Effects, Clarifying Thoughts – Part 4). AI Alignment Forum. https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/89YgRc3NevJEDEen5/mesa-optimizers-and-over-optimization-failure-optimizing-and
8. Milgrom, P. R. and J. Roberts (1992). Economics, Organizations, and Management. NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
9. Chaigneau, P., Edmans, A., & Gottlieb, D. (2014). The informativeness principle under limited liability (No. w20456). National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. Holmström, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell journal of economics, 74-91.
11. West, P., & Potts, C. (2025). Base models beat aligned models at randomness and creativity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.00047.