# Probing Preference Representations: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation and Analysis Method for Reward Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12464 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.12464/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 48 of its 58 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 48)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [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)
- [GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07461/) (2018)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [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)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [Qwen-Audio: Advancing Universal Audio Understanding via Unified Large-Scale Audio-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07919/) (2023)
- [XSTest: A Test Suite for Identifying Exaggerated Safety Behaviours in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.01263/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.01070/) (2018)
- [Contrastive Preference Optimization: Pushing the Boundaries of LLM Performance in Machine Translation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.08417/) (2024)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06657/) (2023)
- [From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17419/) (2025)
- [PKU-SafeRLHF: Towards Multi-Level Safety Alignment for LLMs with Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15513/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16184/) (2024)
- [Probing Pretrained Language Models for Lexical Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05731/) (2020)
- [Arithmetic Control of LLMs for Diverse User Preferences: Directional Preference Alignment with Multi-Objective Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18571/) (2024)
- [HelpSteer: Multi-attribute Helpfulness Dataset for SteerLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09528/) (2023)
- [Regularizing Hidden States Enables Learning Generalizable Reward Model for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10216/) (2024)
- [How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14872/) (2024)
- [Probing Across Time: What Does RoBERTa Know and When?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.07885/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Reward Auditor: Inference on Reward Modeling Suitability in Real-World Perturbed Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.00920/) (2025)
- [MSRL: Scaling Generative Multimodal Reward Modeling via Multi-Stage Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25108/) (2026)
- [Learning from Environmental Feedback: Credit Assignment across Multiple Timescales for Agentic Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08255/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Previous methods evaluate reward models by testing them on a fixed pairwise ranking test set, but they typically do not provide performance information on each preference dimension. In this work, we address the evaluation challenge of reward models by probing preference representations. To confirm the effectiveness of this evaluation method, we construct a Multi-dimensional Reward Model Benchmark (MRMBench), a collection of six probing tasks for different preference dimensions. We design it to favor and encourage reward models that better capture preferences across different dimensions. Furthermore, we introduce an analysis method, inference-time probing, which identifies the dimensions used during the reward prediction and enhances its interpretability. Through extensive experiments, we find that MRMBench strongly correlates with the alignment performance of large language models (LLMs), making it a reliable reference for developing advanced reward models. Our analysis of MRMBench evaluation results reveals that reward models often struggle to capture preferences across multiple dimensions, highlighting the potential of multi-objective optimization in reward modeling. Additionally, our findings show that the proposed inference-time probing method offers a reliable metric for assessing the confidence of reward predictions, which ultimately improves the alignment of LLMs.