cs.CLMay 3, 2026

What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models

Authors: Ranit Karmakar, Jayita Chatterjee

Abstract

Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter. We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks under five prompt variants each, measuring accuracy, token-probability calibration, verbal-confidence calibration, verbal parse rate, and prompt-perturbation spread for every (model x dataset x variant) cell. We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion. Switching Expected Calibration Error (ECE) token from a raw to a label-set-normalised definition changes per-cell calibration by a mean absolute 0.149. More strikingly, pairing a chain-of-thought prompt with a first-character evaluator on ARC-Challenge reduces apparent accuracy by 72-88% across all five primary models; two independent repair procedures recover 93.8% and 102.7% of the lost performance, indicating an evaluator-side rather than model-side failure. Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant. Third, prompt robustness does not track parameter count reliably. Across 10 instruct models, the correlation between model size and prompt-perturbation spread ranges from -0.244 to 0.474 across benchmarks. Taken together, these results show that reliability conclusions for small language models depend not only on the model being evaluated, but also on the evaluation pipeline used to measure it. We argue that calibration definitions, evaluator logic, verbal parseability, and prompt robustness should be reported explicitly when making reliability claims.

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 29, 2026cs.CL

Toxic HallucinAItions: Perturbing Prompts and Tracing LLM Circuits

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in conversational settings where user tone ranges from polite to adversarial or toxic, yet less is known about whether toxic language in otherwise semantically equivalent prompts can degrade factual reliability. We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of LLMs. Using controlled prompt variations across polite, random, and three toxicity levels, we evaluate five LLMs on ARC-Easy, GSM8K, and MMLU. We find that toxic lexical perturbations consistently reduce factual accuracy and increase uncertainty, while polite phrasing yields limited and inconsistent changes. To examine whether these answer inconsistencies correspond to internal changes, we conduct attribution-graph analyses of model activations and influences. We find that increasing toxicity selectively amplifies perturbation-sensitive variant nodes while relatively stable core reasoning nodes remain more invariant. These findings position prompt tone as a critical dimension of LLM reliability and provide behavioral and mechanistic evidence that surface-level lexical variation can alter factual outputs and internal computation.
Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Agam Goyal, Amruta Parulekar +6
Large Language Model ReliabilityPromptVisual HallucinationsConversational ContextModel Activations
AskPDF
Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

Provable Limits and Certified Deferral for Verbalized Uncertainty in Small Language Models

Small open-weight language models increasingly run in private, offline, and cost-sensitive settings, where the key deployment question is not only what a model answers but when it should defer to a human. We study whether verbalized confidence can support risk-controlled deferral, evaluating eleven instruction-tuned models from three families, 0.5B to 14B parameters, on ARC-Challenge and TruthfulQA with 25,168 local predictions. Three theoretical results delimit what calibration can provide: strictly monotone calibration preserves the risk-coverage frontier and error-detection AUROC; temperature scaling cannot calibrate models whose confidence stays above one half while accuracy falls below it; and a Clopper-Pearson procedure converts a 200-question calibration set into a finite-sample risk certificate under an i.i.d. deployment assumption. Empirically, eight of 22 model-task pairs hit the temperature-scaling infeasibility floor within one percentage point of the predicted bound. Platt scaling reduces ECE to as low as 0.02, yet certified autonomy at a 20% risk budget is granted to only three model-task pairs and to none at 10%. We also identify and repair an answer-ordering artifact in the multiple-choice form of TruthfulQA. Calibration gives confidence semantics; certified deferral determines when small models are safe to use.
Jianru Shen
Small Large Language ModelsFinite-Sample CertificatesMonotonicity
AskPDF
May 11, 2026cs.LG

Measuring Five-Nines Reliability: Sample-Efficient LLM Evaluation in Saturated Benchmarks

While existing benchmarks demonstrate the near-perfect performance of large language models (LLMs) on various tasks, this apparent saturation often obscures the need for rigorous evaluation of their reliability. In real-world deployment, however, achieving extremely high reliability (e.g., "five-nines" (99.999%) vs. "three-nines" (99.9%)) is fundamentally critical, as this gap results in an order-of-magnitude increase in failures, which is catastrophic in reliability-critical applications. Still, estimating such a rare failure probability with tight confidence bounds requires prohibitively large LLM inference sizes, making standard Monte Carlo evaluation infeasible under limited compute budgets. In this paper, we observe that LLM failures exhibit strong systematic patterns: across broad parameterized input spaces, a small subset of inputs disproportionately accounts for the majority of failures. Leveraging this observation, we propose to learn a sampling distribution concentrated on failure-prone inputs via the cross-entropy method (CEM). We evaluate our framework on three LLMs, Qwen2.5-Math-7B-Instruct, gpt-oss-20b-low, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, across parameterized GSM8K templates and achieve up to 156.22x reduction in required inferences compared to naive uniform sampling. Our estimates reveal that models with indistinguishable accuracy on standard benchmarks can differ substantially in estimated failure rates, underscoring that reliability is a distinct and measurable axis of model quality. Our simple yet practical framework enables the evaluation of extreme reliability in LLMs, a distinct and underexplored dimension of evaluation beyond existing benchmarks, for their growing use in reliability-sensitive applications.
Eungyeup Kim, Chenchen Gu, Vashisth Tiwari +1
Large Language Model ReliabilityReliabilityLarge Language Model EvaluationLLM Inference EfficiencyMonte Carlo
AskPDF