analiza aiqbench
This study reveals that reward models in RLHF face inherent interference when optimizing for both helpfulness and harmlessness simultaneously. By identifying shared neurons that negatively impact opposing objectives, the research provides a mechanistic explanation for why multi-objective alignment often underperforms compared to single-focus approaches. These findings are critical for advancing controllable AI systems by guiding future work toward disentangled representation learning methods.
Understanding helpfulness and harmless tension in reward models
arXiv:2606.13209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reward models are a key component of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), aligning language models toward both helpful and harmless behaviour. However, the internal mechanisms underlying these objectives and their conflicts remain poorly understood. We study alignment tension in reward models trained under helpfulness-only, harmlessness-only, and mixed-objective settings. We find that mixed-objective models often underperform single-objective models, indicating interference between objectives. Using activation-based methods, we identify neurons associated with each objective and study their functional roles via targeted ablations. We find that these neurons causally support their corresponding objectives while often negatively affecting the opposing one. We find that a substantial proportion of neurons are shared between helpfulness and harmlessness, and that these shared neurons exert a disproportionate influence on model behaviour, contributing to alignment tension. Additionally, our results provide insights and mechanistic interpretation into how alignment objectives are represented in reward models and why multi-objective alignment remains challenging, motivating future work on disentangled and controllable alignment methods.
Abstract:Reward models are a key component of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), aligning language models toward both helpful and harmless behaviour. However, the internal mechanisms underlying these objectives and their conflicts remain poorly understood. We study alignment tension in reward models trained under helpfulness-only, harmlessness-only, and mixed-objective settings. We find that mixed-objective models often underperform single-objective models, indicating interference between objectives. Using activation-based methods, we identify neurons associated with each objective and study their functional roles via targeted ablations. We find that these neurons causally support their corresponding objectives while often negatively affecting the opposing one. We find that a substantial proportion of neurons are shared between helpfulness and harmlessness, and that these shared neurons exert a disproportionate influence on model behaviour, contributing to alignment tension. Additionally, our results provide insights and mechanistic interpretation into how alignment objectives are represented in reward models and why multi-objective alignment remains challenging, motivating future work on disentangled and controllable alignment methods.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2606.13209 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2606.13209v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.13209 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 257 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Understanding Helpfulness and Harmless Tension in Reward Models
arXiv · 14 oct. 2026
Biological Superintelligence
LessWrong · 30 iul. 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026

Inside the suddenly explosive world of AI safety
The Verge · 17 sept. 2026