Improving Preference Extraction In LLMs By Identifying Latent Knowledge Through Classifying Probes
Sharan Maiya, Yinhong Liu, Ramit Debnath, Anna Korhonen
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as automated judges to evaluate text, but their effectiveness can be hindered by various unintentional biases. We propose using linear classifying probes, trained by leveraging differences between contrasting pairs of prompts, to directly access LLMs' latent knowledge and extract more accurate preferences. Through extensive experiments using models of varying size from four different families and six diverse datasets assessing text quality evaluation and common sense reasoning, we demonstrate that both supervised and unsupervised probing approaches consistently outperform traditional generation-based judgement while maintaining similar computational costs. These probes generalise under domain shifts and can even outperform finetuned evaluators with the same training data size. Our results suggest linear probing offers an accurate, robust and computationally efficient approach for LLM-as-judge tasks while providing interpretable insights into how models encode judgement-relevant knowledge. Our data and code will be openly released in the future.
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 f31c28a7-decc-4e51-845c-e25c99d8b034Cited by top-tier papers3
- Beyond Token Probes: Hallucination Detection via Activation Tensors with ACT-ViTGuy Bar-Shalom, Fabrizio Frasca, Yaniv Galron, Yftah Ziser et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 17 citations
- Looking Beyond the One: Operationalizing and Eliciting Visual Ambiguity in VLLMsYuchong Chen, Bowei Zou, Yuhan Chen, Yifan Fan et al.ACL 2026
- One Leak Away: How Pretrained Model Exposure Amplifies Jailbreak Risks in Finetuned LLMsYixin Tan, Yu Zhe, Rui Wen, Jun SakumaCCS 2026
Builds on15
- LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language ModelsEdward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu et al.ICLR 2022 · 18,833 citations
- Refusal in Language Models Is Mediated by a Single DirectionAndy Arditi, Oscar Obeso, Aaquib Syed, Daniel Paleka et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 1,166 citations
- ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent DebateChi-Min Chan, Weize Chen, Yusheng Su, Jianxuan Yu et al.ICLR 2024 · 871 citations
- G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using Gpt-4 with Better Human AlignmentYang Liu, Dan Iter, Yichong Xu, Shuohang Wang et al.EMNLP 2023 · 549 citations
- Language Models Represent Space and TimeWes Gurnee, Max TegmarkICLR 2024 · 303 citations
Related papers
- Prompting is not a substitute for probability measurements in large language modelsJennifer Hu, Roger LevyEMNLP 2023 · 31 citations
- CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding TasksHongchao Jiang, Yiming Chen, Yushi Cao, Hung-Yi Lee et al.ACL 2026 · 33 citations
- Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation EvaluationJunjie Chen, Weihang Su, Zhumin Chu, Haitao Li et al.AAAI 2026
- RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM RepresentationShuqian Sheng, Yi Xu, Tianhang Zhang, Zanwei Shen et al.EMNLP 2024 · 5 citations
- AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated PromptsTaylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace et al.EMNLP 2020 · 1,162 citations
