We study Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in settings where multiple labelers may strategically misreport feedback to steer the learned policy toward their own preferences. We show that existing RLHF algorithms, including recent pluralistic methods, are not strategyproof, and that even a single strategic labeler can cause arbitrarily large misalignment with social welfare. Moreover, we prove that, in the worst case, any strategyproof RLHF algorithm must perform k-times worse than the optimal policy, where k is the number of labelers. This suggests a fundamental trade-off between incentive alignment (ensuring labelers report truthfully) and policy alignment (maximizing social welfare). To address this, we propose the Pessimistic Median of MLEs algorithm, which, under appropriate policy coverage assumptions, is approximately strategyproof and converges to the optimal policy as the number of labelers and samples increases. Our results apply to both contextual bandits and Markov decision processes.

We study Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), where multiple individuals with diverse preferences provide feedback strategically to sway the final policy in their favor. We show that existing RLHF methods are not strategyproof, which can result in learning a substantially misaligned policy even when only one out of $k$ individuals reports their preferences strategically. In turn, we also find that any strategyproof RLHF algorithm must perform $k$-times worse than the optimal policy, highlighting an inherent trade-off between incentive alignment and policy alignment. We then propose a pessimistic median algorithm that, under appropriate coverage assumptions, is approximately strategyproof and converges to the optimal policy as the number of individuals and samples increases.