Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a central framework for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Despite its practical success, RLHF raises fundamental statistical questions because it relies on noisy, subjective, and often heterogeneous feedback to learn reward models and optimize policies. This survey provides a statistical perspective on RLHF, focusing primarily on the LLM alignment setting. We introduce the main components of RLHF, including supervised fine-tuning, reward modeling, and policy optimization, and relate them to familiar statistical ideas such as Bradley-Terry-Luce (BTL) model, latent utility estimation, active learning, experimental design, and uncertainty quantification. We review methods for learning reward functions from pairwise preference data and for optimizing policies through both two-stage RLHF pipelines and emerging one-stage approaches such as direct preference optimization. We further discuss recent extensions including reinforcement learning from AI feedback, inference-time algorithms, and reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards, as well as benchmark datasets, evaluation protocols, and open-source frameworks that support RLHF research. We conclude by highlighting open challenges in RLHF. An accompanying GitHub demo https://github.com/Pangpang-Liu/RLHF_demo illustrates key components of the RLHF pipeline.

Then it fine-tunes the LLM to maximize the learned reward using RL techniques.

With the advent of large language models (LLMs), reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as a pivotal technological paradigm to align models' behaviors with human values [

Modeling the human as Boltzmann-rational w.r.t. a belief over trajectories, we prove conditions under which RLHF is

Ideally, we would like methods that train LMs only once ( i.e., one-shot) with a fixed objective, as in

We provide theoretical insights that support our method's alignment with standard preference alignment objectives.

However, if error is heavy-tailed, some policies obtain arbitrarily high reward despite achieving no more utility than the base model-a phenomenon we call catastrophic Goodhart. We adapt a discrete optimization method to measure the tails of reward models, finding that they are consistent with light-tailed error.