Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critiques the standard reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) approach, highlighting how it often compresses diverse human judgments into a single scalar reward, which can misrepresent alignment in culturally diverse contexts. Through an analysis of 321 preference events involving 20 participants in Malaysia, the authors reveal that 79% of prompts contain multiple majority-supported responses that would be overlooked by traditional single-winner aggregation methods. The findings emphasize the importance of recognizing and preserving plural-valid responses to ensure measurement validity in alignment methods, advocating for a shift towards Validity-Preserving Consistency in future RLHF frameworks.
Majority aggregation in RLHF can overlook 79% of culturally valid responses, risking misalignment in diverse societies.
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.
