Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This study investigates the internal mechanisms of persona-dependent preferences in large language models, revealing how preference representations are shared or distinct across different model states. By training linear probes on residual-stream activations, researchers demonstrated that a single preference vector can causally steer task choices even when shifting between radically different personas, such as helpful assistants and adversarial agents. The findings provide critical insight into the structural organization of LLM decision-making and the transferability of behavioral biases across prompted identities.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Probing Persona-Dependent Preferences in Language Models

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2605.13339v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can be said to have preferences: they reliably pick certain tasks and outputs over others, and preferences shaped by post-training and prompting appear to influence much of their behaviour. But models can also adopt different personas which have radically different preferences. How is this implemented internally? Does each persona use its own preference representations, or are some representations shared? We train linear probes on residual-stream activations of Gemma-3-27B and Qwen-3.5-122B to predict revealed pairwise task choices, and identify a genuine preference vector: it tracks the model's preferences as they shift across a range of prompts and situations, and on Gemma-3-27B steering along it causally controls pairwise choice. Some preference information transfers across the prompted personas we test: a probe trained on the helpful assistant predicts and steers the choices of qualitatively different personas, including an evil persona whose preferences anti-correlate with the Assistant's.

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) can be said to have preferences: they reliably pick certain tasks and outputs over others, and preferences shaped by post-training and prompting appear to influence much of their behaviour. But models can also adopt different personas which have radically different preferences. How is this implemented internally? Does each persona use its own preference representations, or are some representations shared? We train linear probes on residual-stream activations of Gemma-3-27B and Qwen-3.5-122B to predict revealed pairwise task choices, and identify a genuine preference vector: it tracks the model's preferences as they shift across a range of prompts and situations, and on Gemma-3-27B steering along it causally controls pairwise choice. Some preference information transfers across the prompted personas we test: a probe trained on the helpful assistant predicts and steers the choices of qualitatively different personas, including an evil persona whose preferences anti-correlate with the Assistant's.

Accepted at Neurips. 41 pages, 45 figures. Code: this https URL. Earlier write-up on LessWrong: this https URL

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2605.13339 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2605.13339v3 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.13339 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 261 words

Related coverage