Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive?
Siqi Shen, Mehar Singh, Lajanugen Logeswaran, Moontae Lee, Honglak Lee, Rada Mihalcea
Abstract
The value orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) has been extensively studied, as it can shape user experiences across demographic groups. However, two key challenges remain: (1) the lack of systematic comparison across value probing strategies, despite the Multiple Choice Question (MCQ) setting being vulnerable to perturbations, and (2) the uncertainty over whether probed values capture in-context information or predict models' real-world actions. In this paper, we systematically compare three widely used value probing methods: token likelihood, sequence perplexity, and text generation. Our results show that all three methods exhibit large variances under non-semantic perturbations in prompts and option formats, with sequence perplexity being the most robust overall. We further introduce two tasks to assess expressiveness: demographic prompting, testing whether probed values adapt to cultural context; and value-action agreement, testing the alignment of probed values with value-based actions. We find that demographic context has little effect on the text generation method, and probed values only weakly correlate with action preferences across all methods. Our work highlights the instability and the limited expressive power of current value probing methods, calling for more reliable LLM value representations.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 2bf79e5a-e81f-4523-99ca-d3ce2c337301Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on8
- Aligning AI With Shared Human ValuesDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andrew Critch et al.ICLR 2021 · 878 citations
- Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice SelectorsChujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou et al.ICLR 2024 · 424 citations
- Crosslingual Generalization through Multitask FinetuningNiklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts et al.ACL 2023 · 319 citations
- Investigating Cultural Alignment of Large Language ModelsBadr AlKhamissi, Muhammad N. ElNokrashy, Mai Alkhamissi, Mona T. DiabACL 2024 · 27 citations
- Measuring Human and AI Values Based on Generative Psychometrics with Large Language ModelsHaoran Ye, Yuhang Xie, Yuanyi Ren, Hanjun Fang et al.AAAI 2025 · 18 citations
Related papers
- Do LLMs have Consistent Values?Naama Rozen, Liat Bezalel, Gal Elidan, Amir Globerson et al.ICLR 2025
- Cultural Conditioning or Placebo? On the Effectiveness of Socio-Demographic PromptingSagnik Mukherjee, Muhammad Farid Adilazuarda, Sunayana Sitaram, Kalika Bali et al.EMNLP 2024 · 3 citations
- AdAEM: An Adaptively and Automated Extensible Measurement of LLMs' Value DifferenceJing Yao, Shitong Duan, Xiaoyuan Yi, Dongkuan Xu et al.ICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language ModelsRicardo Dominguez-Olmedo, Moritz Hardt, Celestine Mendler-DünnerNeurIPS 2024 · 116 citations
- Inertia in Moral and Value Judgments of Large Language ModelsBruce W. Lee, Yeongheon Lee, Hyunsoo ChoACL 2026 · 5 citations
