Procedural Fairness Failures in RLHF from Preference Averaging

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/

While Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the standard paradigm for aligning large language models with human preferences, its effectiveness in pluralistic settings has been called into question. Notably, recent work by G"olz et al. (2025) demonstrated that the \textit{distortion} -- defined as the multiplicative gap between the average user utility of the RLHF policy and the optimal average utility -- can scale exponentially with the Bradley-Terry temperature parameter $\beta$ when users have heterogeneous preferences. In this work, we present a fine-grained analysis of the distortion of RLHF with reward clipping and demonstrate that such exponential degradation is not a fundamental property of the algorithm but rather a consequence of distribution mismatch between the distribution generating preference data ($\mu$) and the KL reference policy ($\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$). To this end, we establish tight upper and lower bounds on the distortion of RLHF across multiple regimes of the KL regularization strength. We show that in a representative regime, under the Bradley-Terry model, the distortion is $\tilde{\Theta}(\beta B + \beta)$, where $B$ is an upper bound on the log density ratio between $\mu$ and $\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$. In particular, when there is no distribution mismatch (i.e., $\mu = \pi_{\mathrm{ref}}$), RLHF achieves the optimal distortion of $O(\beta)$ up to a constant. Our results suggest that, to reasonably maximize average utility with RLHF, it is preferable to use on-policy sampled preference data or to fine-tune before RLHF on data from a source close to $\mu$.

Standard RLHF pipelines often reduce heterogeneous human judgments into a single scalar reward target. We argue that this reduction can mis-measure alignment in structurally plural societies, where disagreement may reflect culturally, historically, linguistically, regionally, or normatively grounded interpretations rather than annotation noise. We call this failure Preference-Validity Compression, the collapse of multiple plural-valid response options into a single optimization target. Using Malaysia as a diagnostic setting, we analyze RLHF-style feedback aggregation through preference events linking prompts, responses, and acceptability judgments across interpretive frames. Across 321 preference events from 20 participants and 107 trio-annotated prompts, 79% of prompts contain more than one majority-supported response that single-winner aggregation would discard, and apparent dominance gaps between top responses diminish when all majority-supported options are considered. Participants frequently select multiple acceptable responses, and discarded responses demonstrably reflect coherent local, practical, or cultural frames. These findings show that majority aggregation in this corpus measures argmax acceptability rather than plural alignment. We treat this as a measurement-validity issue and argue that future alignment methods should satisfy Validity-Preserving Consistency, remaining stable across plural-valid interpretive frames rather than collapsing them into a single reward target.