Mitigating Cognitive Bias in RLHF by Altering Rationality

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has enabled progress on reasoning-intensive tasks by relying on task-specific verifiers that provide automated correctness signals. However, many realistic language tasks are difficult to equip with reliable verifiers, motivating a growing reliance on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). In this setting, we argue that a closer examination of how human feedback should be interpreted is essential. We introduce Regret-based Preference Optimization $(\textbf{RePO})$, which reframes RLHF through $\textit{regret minimization}$ rather than reward maximization. Human preferences are often shaped by $\textit{prospective}$ anticipation of outcomes and $\textit{counterfactual}$ comparisons to alternative behaviors, rather than by immediate, outcome-independent utility. $\textbf{RePO}$ captures this structure by modeling preferences as behavior-conditioned assessments of relative suboptimality. Experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks and human preference datasets demonstrate consistent performance gains, indicating that $\textbf{RePO}$ is an effective and human-aligned approach for training large language models.

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/

Reward models (RMs) play a central role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RMs are often sensitive to spurious features such as response length. Existing inference-time approaches for mitigating these biases typically focus exclusively on response length, resulting in performance trade-offs. In this paper, we propose causally motivated intervention for mitigating multiple types of biases in RMs at inference time. Our method first identifies neurons whose activations are strongly correlated with predefined bias attributes, and applies neuron-level intervention that suppresses these signals. We evaluate our method on RM benchmarks and observe reductions in sensitivity to spurious features across diverse bias types, without inducing performance trade-offs. Moreover, when used for preference annotation, small RMs (2B and 7B) with our method, which edits less than 2% of all the neurons in RMs, enable LLMs to improve alignment, achieving performance comparable to that of a state-of-the-art 70B RM on AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Further analysis reveals that bias signals are primarily encoded by neurons in early layers, shedding light on the internal mechanisms of bias exploitation in RMs.