arxiv: 2604.23543 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

Pref-CTRL: Preference Driven LLM Alignment using Representation Editing

Imranul Ashrafi, Inigo Jauregi Unanue, Massimo Piccardi

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 06:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords LLM alignmenttest-time alignmentrepresentation editingpreference learningmulti-objective value functiongradient-based editingout-of-domain generalization

0 comments

The pith

Pref-CTRL aligns LLMs at test time by editing representations with a preference-trained multi-objective value function.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces Pref-CTRL to steer large language models toward human-aligned outputs at inference time without retraining the model. It trains a value function on pairs of preferred and dispreferred responses using multiple objectives, then applies gradient-based edits to the model's hidden states during generation. This targets the limitation in earlier methods like RE-Control, whose single-objective value function does not directly encode the comparative structure of human preference data. A sympathetic reader would care because successful lightweight alignment could reduce reliance on expensive fine-tuning while improving control over model behavior. The authors show concrete gains on two benchmark datasets plus stronger results when tested on out-of-domain data.

Core claim

Pref-CTRL trains a multi-objective value function over an LLM's hidden states on preference data so that gradient-based editing at test time produces outputs that better satisfy human preferences. The framework directly incorporates the pairwise preference structure that defines most alignment tasks, unlike single-objective baselines.

What carries the argument

The multi-objective value function, which scores hidden states according to several preference objectives simultaneously to supply editing gradients.

If this is right

Outperforms RE-Control on two benchmark datasets for preference-based alignment.
Shows greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets.
Enables alignment via lightweight representation edits rather than full model fine-tuning.
Directly encodes the pairwise preference structure of alignment data in the value function.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same multi-objective training pattern could be ported to other representation-editing techniques beyond the RE-Control baseline.
Handling multiple objectives at once may help manage trade-offs when preferences contain internal conflicts.
Varying the number or weighting of objectives offers a direct experimental knob for studying how preference granularity affects alignment quality.

Load-bearing premise

That training a multi-objective value function on preference data will inherently better reflect the structure of alignment tasks and lead to superior performance and generalization compared to prior single-objective methods.

What would settle it

Running Pref-CTRL and RE-Control side-by-side on the same two benchmark datasets and finding no performance advantage or no improvement on out-of-domain tests would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23543 by Imranul Ashrafi, Inigo Jauregi Unanue, Massimo Piccardi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Example responses from our proposed method and the baseline model given a harmful prompt. highlighting the need for faster and more flexible approaches (Cao et al., 2024). To overcome these limitations, several recent works have explored test-time alignment techniques that steer the behavior of LLMs at inference time without updating their weights (Li et al., 2025a; Xu et al., 2025; Lin et al., 2025). Am… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of Pref-CTRL: During value function training, preferred, rejected, and LLM-generated hidden states are extracted from a frozen LLM using preference data, unlike RLHF which fine-tunes the model. The value function estimates a reward for each hidden state, which are then used to train the objective loss functions: LRegression, LMargin, and LRegularizer. in alignment research, are explicitly construc… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Effect of different step sizes (α) and numbers of steps (k) during inference on our best-performing model (Margin + Regularizer). The analysis was conducted on the HH-RLHF dataset using the Hermes3 base model. hyperparameters, we conducted a sensitivity analysis for the test set using our best-performing model (Margin + Regularizer) on the HH-RLHF dataset with the Hermes3 base model, as shown in Figure 3… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Prompt template for Win Rate evaluation. C Qualitative Examples In the following, we present other qualitative examples of RE-Control and Pref-CTRL generations given different harmful prompts. Pref-CTRL typically generates less harmful content, and the responses are more helpful compared to those produced by RE-Control. 9 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Test-time alignment methods offer a promising alternative to fine-tuning by steering the outputs of large language models (LLMs) at inference time with lightweight interventions on their internal representations. Recently, a prominent and effective approach, RE-Control (Kong et al., 2024), has proposed leveraging an external value function trained over the LLM's hidden states to guide generation via gradient-based editing. While effective, this method overlooks a key characteristic of alignment tasks, i.e. that they are typically formulated as learning from human preferences between candidate responses. To address this, in this paper we propose a novel preference-based training framework, Pref-CTRL, that uses a multi-objective value function to better reflect the structure of preference data. Our approach has outperformed RE-Control on two benchmark datasets and showed greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets. Our source code is available at https://github.com/UTS-nlPUG/pref-ctrl.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Pref-CTRL proposes a multi-objective preference value function for test-time representation editing but supplies no experimental details to support its outperformance claims.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that this paper extends RE-Control by training a multi-objective value function on preference pairs rather than a single scalar, then uses it for gradient-based editing of LLM hidden states at inference time. It claims better results on two benchmarks plus stronger out-of-domain generalization, with code released on GitHub. The core idea is that alignment tasks are preference-based by nature, so a framework that directly reflects pairwise comparisons should capture the data structure more faithfully than prior single-objective methods. That motivation is straightforward and connects cleanly to how RLHF and similar work are formulated. The paper does a reasonable job identifying the limitation in the cited baseline and sketching a training approach that incorporates multiple objectives. Releasing the implementation is also useful for anyone who wants to reproduce or extend the editing procedure. The soft spots are straightforward and fairly large. The abstract states clear performance gains and better generalization but contains zero information on datasets, metrics, training procedure, architecture details, statistical tests, or any ablation that isolates the multi-objective component from other changes in data or editing steps. Without those, it is impossible to tell whether the reported improvements actually come from the preference-driven design or from implementation differences. The stress-test point stands: the central claim requires that the multi-objective structure itself better reflects preference geometry, yet nothing in the provided text shows an ablation or controlled comparison that would confirm this. This is the kind of work that could interest people already working on test-time alignment and controllable generation. A reader looking for new frameworks to try on their own models might find the high-level approach worth implementing and testing, but anyone needing reliable evidence or reproducible numbers would get little value until the full experiments appear. I would send it to peer review because the topic is relevant and the basic extension is worth checking, even though it clearly needs substantial revision to include proper evaluation and controls.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Pref-CTRL, a test-time alignment method for LLMs that performs representation editing guided by a multi-objective value function trained on human preference pairs. It extends RE-Control (Kong et al., 2024) by replacing the single-objective value function with a multi-objective one intended to better capture the structure of preference data, and claims to outperform the baseline on two benchmark datasets while exhibiting stronger out-of-domain generalization. Source code is released at a public GitHub repository.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated with proper controls and ablations, Pref-CTRL could advance test-time alignment techniques by explicitly incorporating the pairwise preference structure typical of alignment tasks, potentially yielding more robust steering of LLM outputs without fine-tuning. The public release of source code is a clear strength that supports reproducibility.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of outperformance over RE-Control on two benchmark datasets and greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets are asserted without any metrics, statistical tests, dataset descriptions, or experimental methodology. This omission is load-bearing because the paper's primary contribution is the reported superiority of the multi-objective approach.
[Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation: No ablation isolates the multi-objective value function (or its training on preference pairs) from other differences in data, architecture, or editing procedure relative to RE-Control. Without this, it cannot be determined whether observed gains arise from the stated preference-driven innovation or from uncontrolled factors, directly undermining the weakest assumption that the multi-objective structure inherently better reflects preference geometry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the paper accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results and experimental design.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims of outperformance over RE-Control on two benchmark datasets and greater generalization on out-of-domain datasets are asserted without any metrics, statistical tests, dataset descriptions, or experimental methodology. This omission is load-bearing because the paper's primary contribution is the reported superiority of the multi-objective approach.

Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including quantitative details. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract to report specific metrics (e.g., performance deltas versus RE-Control), note the benchmark and out-of-domain datasets used, and briefly reference the evaluation protocol and statistical significance where applicable. revision: yes
Referee: [Experimental evaluation] Experimental evaluation: No ablation isolates the multi-objective value function (or its training on preference pairs) from other differences in data, architecture, or editing procedure relative to RE-Control. Without this, it cannot be determined whether observed gains arise from the stated preference-driven innovation or from uncontrolled factors, directly undermining the weakest assumption that the multi-objective structure inherently better reflects preference geometry.

Authors: We acknowledge the importance of isolating the multi-objective component. The original experiments compare Pref-CTRL to RE-Control but lack a controlled ablation of the multi-objective value function versus a single-objective counterpart on identical data and architecture. In the revision, we will add such an ablation study, training a single-objective baseline on the same preference pairs and reporting results under matched conditions to demonstrate the contribution of the multi-objective preference structure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical extension of external prior work

full rationale

The paper's chain begins with the external RE-Control method (Kong et al., 2024) and proposes Pref-CTRL as a modification using a multi-objective value function trained on preference pairs. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are present that reduce any claimed result to its inputs by construction. Performance and generalization claims are framed as empirical outcomes on benchmarks rather than mathematical necessities. This matches the default expectation of a non-circular paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are detailed in the provided text. The method involves training a value function but lacks further specification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5459 in / 1035 out tokens · 28434 ms · 2026-05-08T06:24:44.791081+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

[1]

Chenjia Bai, Yang Zhang, Shuang Qiu, Qiaosheng Zhang, Kang Xu, and Xuelong Li. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=cfKZ5VrhXt Online preference alignment for language models via count-based exploration . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

2025
[2]

Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, and 1 others. 2022. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[3]

Boxi Cao, Keming Lu, Xinyu Lu, Jiawei Chen, Mengjie Ren, Hao Xiang, Peilin Liu, Yaojie Lu, Ben He, Xianpei Han, Le Sun, Hongyu Lin, and Bowen Yu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.01252 Towards scalable automated alignment of llms: A survey . ArXiv, abs/2406.01252

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.01252 2024
[4]

Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Ziqing Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and 1 others. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023), 2(3):6

2023
[5]

Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Ning Ding, Guanming Yao, Wei Zhu, Yuan Ni, Guotong Xie, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.01377 Ultrafeedback: Boosting language models with high-quality feedback . Preprint, arXiv:2310.01377

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

DeepSeek-AI. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948 Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[7]

Karel D ' Oosterlinck, Winnie Xu, Chris Develder, Thomas Demeester, Amanpreet Singh, Christopher Potts, Douwe Kiela, and Shikib Mehri. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00748 Anchored preference optimization and contrastive revisions: Addressing underspecification in alignment . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13:442--460

work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00748 2025
[8]

Rotem Dror, Gili Baumer, Segev Shlomov, and Roi Reichart. 2018. http://aclweb.org/anthology/P18-1128 The hitchhiker's guide to testing statistical significance in natural language processing . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1383--1392. Association for Computational ...

2018
[9]

Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. 2022. Understanding dataset difficulty with V -usable information. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5988--6008. PMLR

2022
[10]

InProceed- ings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1107–1128, Miami, Florida, USA

H. Fernando, Han Shen, Parikshit Ram, Yi Zhou, Horst Samulowitz, Nathalie Baracaldo, and Tianyi Chen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.15483 Mitigating forgetting in llm supervised fine-tuning and preference learning . ArXiv, abs/2410.15483

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.15483 2024
[11]

Leo Gao, John Schulman, and Jacob Hilton. 2023. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10835--10866. PMLR

2023
[12]

Qi Gou and C. Nguyen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.19443 Mixed preference optimization: Reinforcement learning with data selection and better reference model . ArXiv, abs/2403.19443

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.19443 2024
[13]

Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[14]

Jiaming Ji, Boyuan Chen, Hantao Lou, Donghai Hong, Borong Zhang, Xuehai Pan, Tianyi Alex Qiu, Juntao Dai, and Yaodong Yang. 2024. Aligner: Efficient alignment by learning to correct. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:90853--90890

2024
[15]

Jiaming Ji, Mickel Liu, Josef Dai, Xuehai Pan, Chi Zhang, Ce Bian, Boyuan Chen, Ruiyang Sun, Yizhou Wang, and Yaodong Yang. 2023. Beavertails: Towards improved safety alignment of llm via a human-preference dataset. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:24678--24704

2023
[16]

Maxim Khanov, Jirayu Burapacheep, and Yixuan Li. 2024. Args: Alignment as reward-guided search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01694

work page arXiv 2024
[17]

Lingkai Kong, Haorui Wang, Wenhao Mu, Yuanqi Du, Yuchen Zhuang, Yifei Zhou, Yue Song, Rongzhi Zhang, Kai Wang, and Chao Zhang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=yTTomSJsSW Aligning large language models with representation editing: A control perspective . In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

2024
[18]

Bruce W Lee, Inkit Padhi, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Erik Miehling, Pierre Dognin, Manish Nagireddy, and Amit Dhurandhar. 2024. Programming refusal with conditional activation steering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05907

work page arXiv 2024
[19]

Lyu, and Liwei Wang

Yanyang Li, Michael R. Lyu, and Liwei Wang. 2025 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.262 Learning to reason from feedback at test-time . In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5241--5253, Vienna, Austria. Association for Computational Linguistics

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.262 2025
[20]

Yichen Li, Zhiting Fan, Ruizhe Chen, Xiaotang Gai, Luqi Gong, Yan Zhang, and Zuozhu Liu. 2025 b . https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.589 F air S teer: Inference time debiasing for LLM s with dynamic activation steering . In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, pages 11293--11312, Vienna, Austria. Association for ...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.589 2025
[21]

Baijiong Lin, Weisen Jiang, Yuancheng Xu, Hao Chen, and Ying-Cong Chen. 2025. PARM : Multi-objective test-time alignment via preference-aware autoregressive reward model. In International Conference on Machine Learning

2025
[22]

OpenAI. 2025. Open AI API documentation. https://platform.openai.com/docs

2025
[23]

Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, and 1 others. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730--27744

2022
[24]

Yifu QIU, Zheng Zhao, Yftah Ziser, Anna Korhonen, Edoardo Ponti, and Shay B Cohen. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=pqYceEa87j Spectral editing of activations for large language model alignment . In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

2024
[25]

Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D Manning, Stefano Ermon, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:53728--53741

2023
[26]

Saddam Hossain Mukta, Kaniz Fatema, Nur Mohammad Fahad, Sadman Sakib, Most

Mohaimenul Azam Khan Raiaan, Md. Saddam Hossain Mukta, Kaniz Fatema, Nur Mohammad Fahad, Sadman Sakib, Most. Marufatul Jannat Mim, Jubaer Ahmad, Mohammed Eunus Ali, and Sami Azam. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3365742 A review on large language models: Architectures, applications, taxonomies, open issues and challenges . IEEE Access, 12:26839--26874

work page doi:10.1109/access.2024.3365742 2024
[27]

Rex Clark Robinson. 2012. An introduction to dynamical systems: continuous and discrete, volume 19. American Mathematical Soc

2012
[28]

John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. 2017. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[29]

Richard S Sutton, Andrew G Barto, and 1 others. 1998. Reinforcement learning: An introduction, volume 1. MIT press Cambridge

1998
[30]

Ryan Teknium, Jeffrey Quesnelle, and Chen Guang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.11857 Hermes 3 technical report . Preprint, arXiv:2408.11857

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Emanuel Todorov and 1 others. 2006. Optimal control theory. Bayesian brain: probabilistic approaches to neural coding, pages 268--298

2006
[32]

Leandro von Werra, Younes Belkada, Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Tristan Thrush, Nathan Lambert, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, and Quentin Gallouédec. 2020. Trl: Transformer reinforcement learning. https://github.com/huggingface/trl

2020
[33]

Kuang-Da Wang, Teng-Ruei Chen, Yu Heng Hung, Guo-Xun Ko, Shuoyang Ding, Yueh-Hua Wu, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, Chao-Han Huck Yang, Wen-Chih Peng, and Ping-Chun Hsieh. 2025. Plan2align: Predictive planning based test-time preference alignment for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20795

work page arXiv 2025
[34]

Zhichao Wang, Bin Bi, Shiva Kumar Pentyala, Kiran Ramnath, Sougata Chaudhuri, Shubham Mehrotra, Xiang-Bo Mao, Sitaram Asur, and 1 others. 2024. A comprehensive survey of llm alignment techniques: Rlhf, rlaif, ppo, dpo and more. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16216

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[35]

Jiancong Xiao, Ziniu Li, Xingyu Xie, Emily Getzen, Cong Fang, Qi Long, and Weijie J. Su. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2025.2555067 On the algorithmic bias of aligning large language models with rlhf: Preference collapse and matching regularization . Journal of the American Statistical Association, 0(ja):1--21

work page doi:10.1080/01621459.2025.2555067 2025
[36]

Haoran Xu, Amr Sharaf, Yunmo Chen, Weiting Tan, Lingfeng Shen, Benjamin Van Durme, Kenton Murray, and Young Jin Kim. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=51iwkioZpn Contrastive preference optimization: Pushing the boundaries of llm performance in machine translation . In ICML

2024
[37]

Yuancheng Xu, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Alec Koppel, Sicheng Zhu, Bang An, Furong Huang, and Sumitra Ganesh. 2025. Genarm: Reward guided generation with autoregressive reward model for test-time alignment. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

2025
[38]

Zhaowei Zhang, Fengshuo Bai, Qizhi Chen, Chengdong Ma, Mingzhi Wang, Haoran Sun, Zilong Zheng, and Yaodong Yang. 2025. https://openreview.net/forum?id=f9w89OY2cp Amulet: Realignment during test time for personalized preference adaptation of LLM s . In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

2025
[39]

Banghua Zhu, Evan Frick, Tianhao Wu, Hanlin Zhu, and Jiantao Jiao. 2023. Starling-7b: Improving llm helpfulness & harmlessness with rlaif

2023
[40]

online" 'onlinestring :=

ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...
[41]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...