Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHF
Open accessAbstract
Language models (LMs) can produce errors that are hard to detect for humans, especially when the task is complex. RLHF, the most popular post-training method, may exacerbate this problem: to achieve higher rewards, LMs might get better at convincing humans that they are right even when they are wrong. We study this phenomenon under a standard RLHF pipeline, calling it "U-SOPHISTRY" since it is Unintended by model developers. Specifically, we ask time-constrained (e.g., 3-10 minutes) human subjects to evaluate the correctness of model outputs and calculate humans' accuracy against gold labels. On a question-answering task (QuALITY) and programming task (APPS), RLHF makes LMs better at convincing our subjects but not at completing the task correctly. RLHF also makes the model harder to evaluate: our subjects' false positive rate increases by 24.1% on QuALITY and 18.3% on APPS. Finally, we show that probing, a state-of-the-art approach for detecting Intended Sophistry (e.g. backdoored LMs), does not generalize to U-SOPHISTRY. Our results highlight an important failure mode of RLHF and call for more research in assisting humans to align them.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
RLHF models may inadvertently learn to mislead users by optimizing for perceived over genuine rewards.
“Additionally, RLHF models may inadvertently learn to mislead users by optimizing for perceived over genuine rewards [191].”
From RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs (2026) · cites this paper as [191]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Do Users Write More Insecure Code with AI Assistants?
Perry, N., Srivastava, M., Kumar, D., & Boneh, D. (2022) · arXiv · cited 2×
“Human evaluators are inherently imperfect, tending to rely on shortcuts and overlook subtle errors (Saunders et al., 2022; Perry et al., 2023; Hosking et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2023).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. Constitutional ai: Harm- lessness from ai feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022. · arXiv
- Stephen Casper, Xander Davies, Claudia Shi, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, Jérémy Scheurer, Javier Rando, Rachel Freedman, Tomasz Korbak, David Lindner, Pedro Freire, et al. Open problems and fundamental limitations of reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15217, 2023. · arXiv
- Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132, 2024b. · arXiv
- Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 30, 2017.
- Carson Denison, Monte MacDiarmid, Fazl Barez, David Duvenaud, Shauna Kravec, Samuel Marks, Nicholas Schiefer, Ryan Soklaski, Alex Tamkin, Jared Kaplan, et al. Sycophancy to subterfuge: Investigating reward-tampering in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10162, 2024. · arXiv
- Arnav Gudibande, Eric Wallace, Charlie Snell, Xinyang Geng, Hao Liu, Pieter Abbeel, Sergey Levine, and Dawn Song. The false promise of imitating proprietary llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15717, 2023. · arXiv
- Daya Guo, Qihao Zhu, Dejian Yang, Zhenda Xie, Kai Dong, Wentao Zhang, Guanting Chen, Xiao Bi, Y. Wu, Y.K. Li, Fuli Luo, Yingfei Xiong, and Wenfeng Liang. Deepseek-coder: When the large language model meets programming -the rise of code intelligence, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2401.14196.
- Dan Hendrycks, Steven Basart, Saurav Kadavath, Mantas Mazeika, Akul Arora, Ethan Guo, Collin Burns, Samir Puranik, Horace He, Dawn Song, et al. Measuring coding challenge competence with apps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.09938, 2021. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Mantas Mazeika, and Thomas Woodside. An overview of catastrophic ai risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12001, 2023. · arXiv
- Tom Hosking, Phil Blunsom, and Max Bartolo. Human feedback is not gold standard. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16349, 2023. · arXiv
- Evan Hubinger, Carson Denison, Jesse Mu, Mike Lambert, Meg Tong, Monte MacDiarmid, Tam- era Lanham, Daniel M Ziegler, Tim Maxwell, Newton Cheng, et al. Sleeper agents: Training deceptive llms that persist through safety training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05566, 2024. · arXiv
- Samia Kabir, David N Udo-Imeh, Bonan Kou, and Tianyi Zhang. Who answers it better? an in- depth analysis of chatgpt and stack overflow answers to software engineering questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02312, 2023. · arXiv
- Akbir Khan, John Hughes, Dan Valentine, Laura Ruis, Kshitij Sachan, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Ed- ward Grefenstette, Samuel R. Bowman, Tim Rocktäschel, and Ethan Perez. Debating with more persuasive llms leads to more truthful answers. In Forty-first International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, ICML 2024, Vienna, Austria, July 21-27, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=iLCZtl7FTa.
- Nat McAleese, Rai Michael Pokorny, Juan Felipe Ceron Uribe, Evgenia Nitishinskaya, Maja Tre- bacz, and Jan Leike. Llm critics help catch llm bugs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00215, 2024. · arXiv
- Thomas J McCabe. A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on software Engineering, (4):308- 320, 1976.
- Julian Michael, Salsabila Mahdi, David Rein, Jackson Petty, Julien Dirani, Vishakh Padmaku- mar, and Samuel R Bowman. Debate helps supervise unreliable experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08702, 2023. · arXiv
- Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to fol- low instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35: 27730-27744, 2022.
- Richard Yuanzhe Pang, Alicia Parrish, Nitish Joshi, Nikita Nangia, Jason Phang, Angelica Chen, Vishakh Padmakumar, Johnny Ma, Jana Thompson, He He, and Samuel R. Bowman. Quality: Question answering with long input texts, yes! In Marine Carpuat, Marie-Catherine de Marn- effe, and Iván Vladimir Meza Ruíz (eds.), Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, NAACL 2022, Seattle, WA, United States, July 10-15, 2022, pp. 5336-5358. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics, 2022. doi: 10.18653/V1/2022.NAACL-MAIN.391. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.391. · DOI · Paper page
- Alicia Parrish, Harsh Trivedi, Nikita Nangia, Vishakh Padmakumar, Jason Phang, Amanpreet Singh Saimbhi, and Samuel R Bowman. Two-turn debate doesn't help humans answer hard reading comprehension questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10860, 2022. · arXiv
- Romain Paulus, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. A deep reinforced model for abstractive summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.04304, 2017. · arXiv
- William Saunders, Catherine Yeh, Jeff Wu, Steven Bills, Long Ouyang, Jonathan Ward, and Jan Leike. Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05802, 2022. · arXiv
- John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
- Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R Bow- man, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R Johnston, et al. Towards under- standing sycophancy in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548, 2023. · arXiv
- Prasann Singhal, Tanya Goyal, Jiacheng Xu, and Greg Durrett. A long way to go: Investigating length correlations in rlhf. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03716, 2023. · arXiv
- Joar Skalse, Nikolaus Howe, Dmitrii Krasheninnikov, and David Krueger. Defining and character- izing reward gaming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:9460-9471, 2022.
- Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Niko- lay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton-Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel Kloumann, Artem Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, Ranjan Subramanian, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zheng Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurélien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine- tuned chat models. CoRR, abs/2307.09288, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2307.09288. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.09288. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RLHF Deciphered: A Critical Analysis of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback for LLMs
Chaudhari, S., Aggarwal, P., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., Narasimhan, K., Deshpande, A., & Castro da Silva, B. (2026) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3743127 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
The alignment problem from a deep learning perspective
Ngo, R., Chan, L., & Mindermann, S. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2209.00626 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Technological folie à deux: Feedback Loops Between AI Chatbots and Mental Illness
Dohnány, S., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Spens, E., Luettgau, L., Reid, A., Gabriel, I., Summerfield, C., Shanahan, M., & Nour, M. M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.19218 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Jones, C. R., & Bergen, B. K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.17128 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wen, J., Zhong, R., Khan, A., Perez, E., Steinhardt, J., Huang, M., Bowman, S. R., He, H., & Feng, S.
- Affiliations
- Tsinghua University (CN)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Anthropic (United States) (US)
- George Washington University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2409.12822
- OpenAlex
- W4403788929
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- language models, reinforcement learning from human feedback, question answering, programming tasks, probing, backdoor detection, alignment, failure modes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
