Reverse Engineering Human Preferences with Reinforcement Learning
Lisa Alazraki, Yi Chern Tan, Jon Ander Campos, Maximilian Mozes, Marek Rei, Max Bartolo
Abstract
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.
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 ab6677d8-8d96-46bb-8f63-843a2cc1432bBuilds on20
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- WizardLM: Empowering Large Pre-Trained Language Models to Follow Complex InstructionsCan Xu, Qingfeng Sun, Kai Zheng, Xiubo Geng et al.ICLR 2024 · 1,206 citations
- The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction TuningShayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson et al.ICML 2023 · 908 citations
- LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
Related papers
- Think-J: Learning to Think for Generative LLM-as-a-JudgeHui Huang, Yancheng He, Hongli Zhou, Rui Zhang et al.AAAI 2026 · 12 citations
- D-Judge: Disrupting Multi-Turn Jailbreaks using Semantics-Preserving Output RewritingHuanli Gong, Zhipeng Wei, Yu Fu, Haz Shahgir et al.ICML 2026
- Improve LLM-as-a-Judge Ability as a General AbilityJiachen Yu, Shaoning Sun, Xiaohui Hu, Jiaxu Yan et al.EMNLP 2025 · 1 citation
- Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM AssessmentVyas Raina, Adian Liusie, Mark J. F. GalesEMNLP 2024 · 24 citations
- Optimization-based Prompt Injection Attack to LLM-as-a-JudgeJiawen Shi, Zenghui Yuan, Yinuo Liu, Yue Huang et al.CCS 2024 · 33 citations
