# Multilingual Sentiment Aware Text Summarization A Reinforcement Learning Approach for Consistency Maintenance

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08940 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08940/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.01365/) (2017)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [Bottom-Up Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1808.10792/) (2018)
- [Unsupervised Opinion Summarization with Content Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.07808/) (2020)

## 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.