Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) assumes annotator preferences reflect stable internal states. We challenge this through three experiments spanning the preference pipeline. In a human choice blindness study, 91% of surreptitiously swapped preferences go undetected, extending choice blindness to third-person evaluative comparison of unfamiliar text. Testing fifteen LLM judges as potential replacements, we find detection relies on shallow text matching rather than genuine self-monitoring: removing prior reasoning from context causes blindness to surge from near-zero to over 50%, while explicit social pressure induces near-universal compliance. In a dose-response experiment across two architectures from 86M to 2B parameters, one-sixth to one-third of labels must be corrupted before the reward signal halves, yet standard pairwise accuracy remains virtually unchanged. A Best-of-N evaluation confirms this translates to downstream policy degradation: at 50% corruption, reward-guided selection produces no improvement over random sampling, while the proxy model reports monotonically increasing scores. Together, these results reveal a preference construction problem: the signal entering RLHF is shaped by elicitation context in ways that neither human metacognition, LLM self-monitoring, nor standard evaluation metrics can detect.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) trains AI systems to better match human preferences using comparisons, corrections, and other feedback.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard method to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences. In this work, we introduce alignment tampering, a potential vulnerability where the LLM undergoing alignment influences the preference dataset, causing RLHF to amplify undesired behaviors. This arises from core limitations of RLHF: (1) preference datasets are constructed from the LLM's own outputs, allowing it to influence them, and (2) pairwise comparisons only indicate which response is better, not why. These limitations can be exploited to cause alignment tampering. For example, if an LLM generates biased responses with higher quality, annotators will prefer them based on quality. However, preference labels do not distinguish quality from bias, and the reward model inherits this limitation. Optimizing such rewards through reinforcement learning or best-of-N sampling can amplify misaligned biases. Our experiments demonstrate amplification across diverse biases: from keyword bias to propaganda (e.g., sexism), brand promotion, and instrumental goal-seeking. Mitigation remains challenging, as existing techniques for robust RLHF fail to fully resolve alignment tampering without sacrificing response quality. These findings reveal structural vulnerabilities of current RLHF and emphasize the need to prevent this vulnerability. Project page: https://alignment-tampering.github.io/
How can we make models robust to even imperfect human feedback? In reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), human preferences over model outputs are used to train a reward model that assigns scalar values to responses. Because these rewards are inferred from pairwise comparisons, this learning depends on an assumed relationship between latent reward differences and observed preferences, typically modeled using a Boltzmann formulation in which a rationality parameter beta informs how consistently preferences reflect reward differences. In practice, beta is typically treated as a fixed constant that reflects assumed uniform annotator reliability. However, human feedback is not this simplistic in practice: real human judgments are shaped by cognitive biases, leading to systematic deviations from reward-consistent behavior that arise contextually. To address this, we treat rationality as context- and annotation-dependent. We design an approach to dynamically adjust the rationality parameter beta during reward learning using an LLM-as-judge to assess the likely presence of cognitive biases. This approach effectively downweights comparisons that are likely to reflect biased or unreliable judgments. Empirically, we show that this approach learns a more rational downstream model, even when finetuning on datasets with strongly biased preferences.
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) aggregates heterogeneous preferences into a single reward model, assuming preference homogeneity. When preferences are heterogeneous, this aggregation induces a procedural fairness failure where majority preference groups dominate reward learning while minority preferences are systematically under-represented. This work defines procedural fairness in alignment as preserving distinct preference signals during reward modeling and shows that standard RLHF violates this via preference averaging. Preference-Aware RLHF (PA-RLHF) is introduced, separating optimization across preference modes at the reward learning stage. In a controlled setting, PA-RLHF improves overall alignment accuracy from 46.9% to 67.9% and reduces the fairness gap between best and worst aligned groups from 15.9 to 9.6 percentage points. These results show that procedural fairness failures in alignment can arise from structural design choices in reward learning, even in controlled, noise-free settings, with direct implications for large language models and agentic systems, where biased reward models can compound inequities across sequential decisions.
M P V S Gopinadh, Karthik Kamuju, Kummari Avinash +2