Reverse Engineering Human Preferences with Reinforcement Learning
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment
Abstract (arXiv)
The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable to malicious exploitation, as LLM responses can be tuned to overfit the preferences of the judge. Previous work shows that the answers generated by a candidate-LLM can be edited post hoc to maximise the score assigned to them by a judge-LLM. In this study, we adopt a different approach and use the signal provided by judge-LLMs as a reward to adversarially tune models that generate text preambles designed to boost downstream performance. We find that frozen LLMs pipelined with these models attain higher LLM-evaluation scores than existing frameworks. Crucially, unlike other frameworks which intervene directly on the model's response, our method is virtually undetectable. We also demonstrate that the effectiveness of the tuned preamble generator transfers when the candidate-LLM and the judge-LLM are replaced with models that are not used during training. These findings raise important questions about the design of more reliable LLM-as-a-judge evaluation settings. They also demonstrate that human preferences can be reverse engineered effectively, by pipelining LLMs to optimise upstream preambles via reinforcement learning--an approach that could find future applications in diverse tasks and domains beyond adversarial attacks.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 34 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 May 2025.
Builds on
34 of 47 references.
Closest ancestors · 3
Same direction, newest first
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations15 Apr
- 2024Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-Judge26 Mar
- 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback2 Oct
Other references · 31
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
- 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,125
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferencescited by 912
- 2023Enhancing Chat Language Models by Scaling High-quality Instructional Conversationscited by 839
- 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
- 2023Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?cited by 734
- 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 674
19 more
- 2024From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipelinecited by 500
- 2024Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 368
- 2023JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judgescited by 367
- 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 326
- 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 323
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 302
- 2024LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Taskscited by 243
- 2024InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Modelscited by 135
- 2024Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessmentcited by 126
- 2024Attention Tracker: Detecting Prompt Injection Attacks in LLMscited by 95
- 2024An Empirical Study of LLM-as-a-Judge for LLM Evaluation: Fine-tuned Judge Model is not a General Substitute for GPT-4cited by 94
- 2024The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Modelscited by 93
- 2023LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scorescited by 90
- 2023Topical-Chat: Towards Knowledge-Grounded Open-Domain Conversationscited by 89
- 2023Won't Get Fooled Again: Answering Questions with False Premisescited by 48
- 2024Cheating Automatic LLM Benchmarks: Null Models Achieve High Win Ratescited by 45
- 2024Contrastive Policy Gradient: Aligning LLMs on sequence-level scores in a supervised-friendly fashioncited by 13
- 2025HalluShift: Measuring Distribution Shifts towards Hallucination Detection in LLMscited by 8
- 2024Feint and Attack: Attention-Based Strategies for Jailbreaking and Protecting LLMscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Improve LLM-as-a-Judge Ability as a General Ability
- 2024Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences
- 2025One Token to Fool LLM-as-a-Judge
- 2024Direct Judgement Preference Optimization
- 2025LLMs Cannot Reliably Judge (Yet?): A Comprehensive Assessment on the Robustness of LLM-as-a-Judge
- 2024LLM-as-a-Judge & Reward Model: What They Can and Cannot Do
- 2024Q-Adapter: Customizing Pre-trained LLMs to New Preferences with Forgetting Mitigation
- 2025Improving LLM-as-a-Judge Inference with the Judgment Distribution