Why Summaries Turn Neutral: Policy Attribution for Sentiment Drift in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) has significantly improved the quality and fluency of large language models in text summarization. However, its impact on affective properties remains insufficiently understood. In this work, we study sentiment drift, a systematic shift toward neutral sentiment in RLHF-based summarization outputs compared to source texts. We conduct extensive experiments across multiple datasets, model architectures, and eight languages to analyze how alignment objectives influence sentiment preservation. Our results show that sentiment drift is a consistent phenomenon that becomes stronger with increased KL regularization strength, indicating a trade-off between alignment stability and affective fidelity. To explain this behavior, we introduce a Policy Attribution framework that decomposes the RLHF objective and quantifies the contribution of its components. Our analysis reveals that KL regularization is the primary driver of sentiment suppression across all settings. Based on these findings, we propose a sentiment-aware modification of the KL regularization term, which selectively reduces constraints on sentiment-bearing tokens. Empirical results demonstrate that this approach mitigates sentiment drift while maintaining summarization quality. Overall, our findings highlight a fundamental limitation of current alignment methods: while they improve factual consistency and safety, they may unintentionally suppress emotional expressiveness. This motivates the development of alignment strategies that explicitly account for affective preservation.

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanisms, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) and its direct-optimization variants, shape the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does alignment training encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that these methods produce only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after alignment training. We show that alignment training does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. Alignment training thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If alignment training operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a central framework for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Despite its practical success, RLHF raises fundamental statistical questions because it relies on noisy, subjective, and often heterogeneous feedback to learn reward models and optimize policies. This survey provides a statistical perspective on RLHF, focusing primarily on the LLM alignment setting. We introduce the main components of RLHF, including supervised fine-tuning, reward modeling, and policy optimization, and relate them to familiar statistical ideas such as Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, latent utility estimation, active learning, experimental design, and uncertainty quantification. We review methods for learning reward functions from pairwise preference data and for optimizing policies through both two-stage RLHF pipelines and emerging one-stage approaches such as direct preference optimization. We further discuss recent extensions including reinforcement learning from AI feedback, inference-time algorithms, and reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, as well as benchmark datasets, evaluation protocols, and open-source frameworks that support RLHF research. We conclude by highlighting open challenges in RLHF. An accompanying GitHub demo https://github.com/Pangpang-Liu/RLHF_demo illustrates key components of the RLHF pipeline.