Improving Cross-Format Robustness in Language Models with Multi-Format Training
Authors: June M. Liu, Shaomian Zheng, He Cao, Dingnan Jin, Qing Cui, Jun Zhou
Organizations: Ant Group · International Digital Economy Academy (IDEA)
Abstract
Large language models often remain sensitive to answer format: a question solved correctly in one form may fail in another semantically equivalent form. To study this gap, we define cross-format robustness as the extent to which a model answers the same underlying question consistently across formats. We then compare full-format training with FormatMix, which expands only a subset of training items into multiple equivalent formats using either random or targeted selection. Across GLM4 and Llama-3.1, multi-format supervision consistently improves both task performance and cross-format robustness, whereas Multiple-choice question (MCQ)-only supervision alone brings little benefit and can even reduce robustness. We further find that expanding only about 30% of the training set into multiple formats often recovers most of the gain from full-format training, and this effect appears across the model families and sizes we study. These results suggest that format diversity, rather than additional supervision alone, is the key driver of robustness. That lightweight multi-format augmentation is a practical way to make LLMs less sensitive to answer format without changing the base model.
Despite their strong performance, large language models remain highly sensitive to prompt formulation. Prior work addresses this through refined data construction or through dedicated robustness objectives. We reproduce and compare these strategies under controlled conditions, and measure how effective they are in addressing models' prompt sensitivity. We find the current robustness fine-tuning methods improve over standard fine-tuning and in-context learning, but the best-to-worst prompt gap remains as high as 40-57% of performance. Moreover, the recent robustness-enhancing methods we test - CoIN for contrastive alignment and PPCL for consistency regularization - often fail to outperform the simplest data construction strategy: training on one template per batch. Our diagnostics explain these results. The auxiliary objectives move the quantity they penalize, but do not generalize beyond it. Additionally, data construction strategies differ due to the conflicting signs of per-template gradients on 57-64% of parameters. Thus, batches that mix formulations force the optimizer to reconcile competing updates instead of finding a shared, prompt-agnostic one.
Large language models represent the same reasoning in vastly different surface forms -- English prose, Python code, mathematical notation -- yet whether they share a common internal substrate across these symbolic systems remains unknown. We introduce the TriForm Benchmark (18 concepts x 6 forms x 3 instances = 324 stimuli) and study five LLMs (1.6B-8B) across three architecture families. Using permutation-corrected RSA, cross-form probing, and activation patching, we find converging evidence for a Format-Agnostic Reasoning Subspace (FARS) in middle layers. We make FARS concrete: concept-centroid PCA extracts a 10-dimensional subspace that amplifies concept structure 3x while suppressing form information to near zero. Replacing only these 10 dimensions during cross-form patching preserves 90-96% of model output -- far exceeding both full activation replacement (44-56%) and variance-maximizing PCA (60-74%) -- while ablating them causes targeted disruption. FARS generalizes to held-out concepts and converges across architectures (CCA > 0.79 for all model pairs), providing within-modality evidence for the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. We further discover a declarative-procedural asymmetry: representations are far more compatible between prose and mathematics than between either and code, suggesting that the critical axis of divergence is not linguistic vs. formal but declarative vs. procedural.
The work presents an approach for addressing the challenge of robustness in Large Language Models (LLMs) to alterations and potential errors caused by semantically similar but textually different prompts. Recent works have shown that these kinds of prompt variations can significantly impact the performance of LLMs on tasks. The central question is: can LLMs' robustness to semantically-neutral prompt alterations be acquired without expensive retraining of the entire model? We address this question both theoretically and through experiments. Our theoretical analysis reveals a crucial factor impacting model robustness - a systematic expected shift or perturbation-induced bias in neural network module outputs. Motivated by this analysis, we show that robustness can be achieved via a simple fine-tuning process: debiasing for robustness. We identify conditions when debiasing helps and when it does not, and demonstrate, through both theory and extensive experiments, that debiasing for robustness may indeed be a quick and efficient tool to enhance robustness and provide certification against random prompt perturbations.