Multilingual Sentiment Aware Text Summarization A Reinforcement Learning Approach for Consistency Maintenance
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward modeling and RLHF
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 12 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.
Builds on
10 of 12 references.
Closest ancestors · 2
Same direction, newest first
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model29 May
- 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization19 Oct
Other references · 8
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2017Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networkscited by 3,384
- 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
- 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 407
- 2018Bottom-Up Abstractive Summarizationcited by 177
- 2020Unsupervised Opinion Summarization with Content Planningcited by 27
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Why Summaries Turn Neutral: Policy Attribution for Sentiment Drift in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback
- 2025GRADE: Replacing Policy Gradients with Backpropagation for LLM Alignment
- 2023The Impact of Preference Agreement in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback: A Case Study in Summarization
- 2026TIAO: Token Importance-Aware Policy Optimization for Text Summarization
- 2024Multi-Dimensional Optimization for Text Summarization via Reinforcement Learning
- 2024Beyond Sparse Rewards: Enhancing Reinforcement Learning with Language Model Critique in Text Generation
- 2024Correcting the Mythos of KL-Regularization: Direct Alignment without Overoptimization via Chi-Squared Preference Optimization
- 2024SparsePO: Controlling Preference Alignment of LLMs via Sparse Token Masks