The Illusion of Robustness: Aggregate Accuracy Hides Prediction Flips under Task-Irrelevant Context
Authors: Yanzhe Zhang, Sanmi Koyejo, Diyi Yang
Organizations: Georgia Tech · Stanford University
Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they are increasingly deployed in context-rich settings where task inputs are often accompanied by long, partially irrelevant context. In a controlled setting, we find that state-of-the-art models often appear robust to task-irrelevant context at the aggregate level: prepending it to benchmark questions causes little change in overall accuracy. This aggregate stability, however, masks significant per-example instability. Even semantically meaningless pseudo-words, formed by randomly combining characters, can markedly shift model predictions on a small fraction of examples, degrading performance on some while improving it on others. This two-sided effect holds consistently across a wide range of models and datasets, yet the affected examples are largely model-specific. We further show that this instability is modulated by context type, context length, test-time compute, and model development stage. Together, our findings reveal context-induced tail risks concealed by aggregate accuracy, motivating per-example reliability evaluation of language models.
Recent benchmarks reveal that despite strong reasoning capabilities, large language models (LLMs) still struggle to faithfully apply complex contextual knowledge. These failures are often not wholesale reasoning collapses: in context-rich tasks, models may follow the central reasoning path while missing peripheral, persistent, or format-sensitive requirements.
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered "saturate".
While in-context learning is generally shown to be effective in Large Language Models (LLMs), bad contexts can cause performance degradation and mode collapse, a phenomenon we call "pigeonholing." Unintentionally bad contexts can happen without malicious jailbreaking intents: For example, a user asks the model to justify an incorrect math theorem or fails to correct the model's buggy code. Specifically, we investigate ``pigeonholing" in two scenarios: (1) when the user suggests a solution, and (2) when the conversation context includes the assistant's previous (incorrect) responses. Our experiments across 10 verifiable and open-ended tasks with 10 different models show that pigeonholing manifests in several ways: (1) repeating the incorrect answers from context (leading to 38-40% performance drop), (2) converging on a narrow set of answers in coding and text generation without exploring alternatives, and (3) flipping stance on controversial topics to align with the user or the assistant's previous claims. We find that pigeonholing worsens almost monotonically with the number of conversation turns (performance drops by additional 14+% as repeated mistakes increase from 1 to 5), and pigeonholing-induced mode collapse can happen even when the provided example is correct. As a step toward mitigation, we propose RLVR with synthetic errors which improves models by 43-60% under bad contexts compared to vanilla RLVR baselines.