Governance Challenges in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: Evaluator Rationality and Reinforcement Stability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13972v1
• Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2025 19:10:00 GMT
• Title: Governance Challenges in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: Evaluator Rationality and Reinforcement Stability
• Authors: Dana Alsagheer, Abdulrahman Kamal, Mohammad Kamal, Weidong Shi,
• Abstract summary: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is central in aligning large language models with human values and expectations.<n>This study examines how the cognitive capacity of evaluators, specifically their level of rationality, affects the stability of reinforcement signals.
• Score: 2.3961612657966946
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is central in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and expectations. However, the process remains susceptible to governance challenges, including evaluator bias, inconsistency, and the unreliability of feedback. This study examines how the cognitive capacity of evaluators, specifically their level of rationality, affects the stability of reinforcement signals. A controlled experiment comparing high-rationality and low-rationality participants reveals that evaluators with higher rationality scores produce significantly more consistent and expert-aligned feedback. In contrast, lower-rationality participants demonstrate considerable variability in their reinforcement decisions ($p < 0.01$). To address these challenges and improve RLHF governance, we recommend implementing evaluator pre-screening, systematic auditing of feedback consistency, and reliability-weighted reinforcement aggregation. These measures enhance the fairness, transparency, and robustness of AI alignment pipelines.

Related papers

• Correcting Human Labels for Rater Effects in AI Evaluation: An Item Response Theory Approach [0.0]
  This paper integrates psychometric rater models into the AI pipeline to improve the reliability and validity of conclusions drawn from human judgments.<n>We show how adjusting for rater severity produces corrected estimates of summary quality.<n>This perspective highlights a path toward more robust, interpretable, and construct-aligned practices for AI development and evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T03:35:36Z)
• On the Reliability of User-Centric Evaluation of Conversational Recommender Systems [0.9112926574395824]
  We present a large-scale empirical study investigating the reliability of user-centric CRS evaluation on static dialogue transcripts.<n>We collect 1,053 annotations from 124 crowd workers on 200 ReDial dialogues using the 18-dimensional CRS-Que framework.<n>Our results show that utilitarian and outcome-oriented dimensions such as accuracy, usefulness, and satisfaction achieve moderate reliability under aggregation.<n>Many dimensions collapse into a single global quality signal, revealing a strong halo effect in third-party judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T11:10:11Z)
• VI-CuRL: Stabilizing Verifier-Independent RL Reasoning via Confidence-Guided Variance Reduction [55.04308051033549]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a dominant paradigm for enhancing Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>We introduceVerifier-Independent Curriculum Reinforcement Learning (VI-CuRL), a framework that leverages the model's intrinsic confidence to construct a curriculum independent from external verifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T03:40:52Z)
• R-Align: Enhancing Generative Reward Models through Rationale-Centric Meta-Judging [69.96389360650072]
  We show that reasoning fidelity is highly predictive of downstream RLHF outcomes, beyond standard label accuracy.<n>We propose Rationale-Centric Alignment, R-Align, which augments training with gold judgments and explicitly supervises rationale alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T15:17:11Z)
• Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation [56.84819098277464]
  CoNL is a framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through multi-agent self-play.<n>CoNL achieves consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T09:41:14Z)
• Adaptive and Robust Cost-Aware Proof of Quality for Decentralized LLM Inference Networks [2.621929201001929]
  We extend a cost-aware Proof of Quality mechanism by adding adversary-resilient consensus formation.<n>We quantify evaluator reliability and show strong variance across evaluators, including task-dependent misalignment that can invert correlations.<n>These findings motivate robust consensus as a default component for cost-aware Proof of Quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T02:39:40Z)
• When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs [8.575522204707958]
  Large language models (LLMs) grow in capability and autonomy, evaluating their outputs-especially in open-ended and complex tasks-has become a critical bottleneck.<n>A new paradigm is emerging: using AI agents as the evaluators themselves.<n>In this review, we define the agent-as-a-judge concept, trace its evolution from single-model judges to dynamic multi-agent debate frameworks, and critically examine their strengths and shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T01:42:25Z)
• An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge: How Design Choices Impact Evaluation Reliability [2.8948274245812327]
  We study the effects of evaluation design, decoding strategies, and Chain-of-Tought (CoT) reasoning in evaluation.<n>Our results show that evaluation criteria are critical for reliability, non-deterministic sampling improves alignment with human preferences over deterministic evaluation, and CoT reasoning offers minimal gains when clear evaluation criteria are present.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T16:04:43Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Ψ-Arena: Interactive Assessment and Optimization of LLM-based Psychological Counselors with Tripartite Feedback [51.26493826461026]
  We propose Psi-Arena, an interactive framework for comprehensive assessment and optimization of large language models (LLMs)<n>Arena features realistic arena interactions that simulate real-world counseling through multi-stage dialogues with psychologically profiled NPC clients.<n>Experiments across eight state-of-the-art LLMs show significant performance variations in different real-world scenarios and evaluation perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-06T08:22:51Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks. We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs. We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• DAFE: LLM-Based Evaluation Through Dynamic Arbitration for Free-Form Question-Answering [12.879551933541345]
  We propose the Dynamic Arbitration Framework for Evaluation (DAFE) to evaluate large language models.<n>DAFE employs two primary LLM-as-judges and engages a third arbitrator only in cases of disagreements.<n>We show DAFE's ability to provide consistent, scalable, and resource-efficient assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T15:29:55Z)
• A Survey on Explainable Deep Reinforcement Learning [18.869827229746697]
  Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) has achieved remarkable success in sequential decision-making tasks across diverse domains. Its reliance on black-box neural architectures hinders interpretability, trust, and deployment in high-stakes applications. Explainable Deep Reinforcement Learning (XRL) addresses these challenges by enhancing transparency through feature-level, state-level, dataset-level, and model-level explanation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T05:30:31Z)
• RLHS: Mitigating Misalignment in RLHF with Hindsight Simulation [3.998312409829935]
  We show that Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback can cause severe, systematic misalignment.<n>We introduce Reinforcement Learning from Hindsight Simulation (RLHS), which presents plausible simulated outcomes to evaluators before eliciting feedback.<n>We evaluate post-hoc on the TruthfulQA benchmark and find that, even after single-task fine-tuning, both RLHF misalignment and RLHS alignment carry over to substantially different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-15T06:33:15Z)
• Enabling Scalable Oversight via Self-Evolving Critic [59.861013614500024]
  SCRIT (Self-evolving CRITic) is a framework that enables genuine self-evolution of critique abilities.<n>It self-improves by training on synthetic data, generated by a contrastive-based self-critic.<n>It achieves up to a 10.3% improvement on critique-correction and error identification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• Improving Domain Generalization in Self-supervised Monocular Depth Estimation via Stabilized Adversarial Training [61.35809887986553]
  We propose a general adversarial training framework, named Stabilized Conflict-optimization Adversarial Training (SCAT) SCAT integrates adversarial data augmentation into self-supervised MDE methods to achieve a balance between stability and generalization. Experiments on five benchmarks demonstrate that SCAT can achieve state-of-the-art performance and significantly improve the generalization capability of existing self-supervised MDE methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T15:06:57Z)
• ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
  We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking. We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert. We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars -- Consistency, Scoring Criteria, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z)
• Hindsight-DICE: Stable Credit Assignment for Deep Reinforcement Learning [11.084321518414226]
  We adapt existing importance-sampling ratio estimation techniques for off-policy evaluation to drastically improve the stability and efficiency of so-called hindsight policy methods. Our hindsight distribution correction facilitates stable, efficient learning across a broad range of environments where credit assignment plagues baseline methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-21T20:54:52Z)
• Parameter-Free Deterministic Reduction of the Estimation Bias in Continuous Control [0.0]
  We introduce a parameter-free, novel deep Q-learning variant to reduce this underestimation bias for continuous control. We test the performance of our improvement on a set of MuJoCo and Box2D continuous control tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T07:41:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.