Understanding Tone-Dependent Inference Cost in Large Language Models
Authors: Akhil Kumar, Om Dobariya
Organizations: Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA, USA
Abstract
We examine how prompt tone affects both accuracy of the LLM answers and inference cost as reflected in output-token consumption. Experiments were performed to understand the trade-offs between accuracy and inference cost on a 570 Question MMLU dataset for LLM models prompted in seven different tones from sycophantic to threatening. Our results show that the output-token-length variation substantially exceeded accuracy variation across all models. Output-token consumption varied by up to 44.3% across tone conditions. We also analyzed the tradeoff between the accuracy of the answers and the average output token length in the reasoning process. For the ChatGPT models 4o and 5-nano, the rude tone is quite dominant. For the Gemini models 2.5 Flash and 2.5 Flash Lite, the rude and neutral tones are dominant on the Pareto-optimal frontier. We find that prompt tone influences not only answer quality but also the amount of billable inference resources consumed by modern LLMs.
The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) is proliferating, yet their performance is observed to vary based on prompting styles and tones. In this study, we investigate both whether and how tonal variations in prompts lead to disparate LLM accuracy for objective multiple-choice questions. We use two datasets: a 50-base question dataset with five tone variants and a 570-base question MMLU subset spanning 57 subjects with seven tone variants. Experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance of four cost-efficient, popular LLMs: ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-5-nano, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. Across models, tonal effects are systematic but highly model-dependent. Some models show small, yet statistically significant, shifts, while others exhibit large accuracy swings across tones. Further, we identify subject-level differences in tone sensitivity and present a routing framework to explain how tones may attune internal reasoning modes. Our findings caution users against assuming tone-robust reliability in LLM deployments.
Practitioners make three prompt-design decisions with almost no controlled evidence behind them: how to format instructions and context (markdown, plain text, prose, or tabular), how many simultaneous instructions a system prompt can carry before compliance degrades, and how much context a model can hold before recall and honesty degrade. We report two controlled experiments crossing all three factors on one held, contamination-free synthetic corpus (the "Book of Veyra," 8,780 uniquely-named entities, deterministically regenerable from a fixed seed), evaluated across five models. Experiment 1 (960 calls/model) measures instruction-following decay as rule count N grows from 10 to 160, crossed with four formats and system-prompt vs. user-turn placement. Perfect-response rate collapses to zero by N=80 for every model, format, and placement. Placement produces effects at least as large as format at N=160 in most models, but the direction is model-specific. No model shows a reliable markdown advantage; one 35B model favors plain text instead. Experiment 2 (5,520 calls/model) measures recall accuracy, false-premise sycophancy, and absent-fact fabrication across a 2k-to-512k-token context ladder in the same four formats. Recall stays near ceiling through 64-128k tokens, then degrades sharply and format-dependently: one model's accuracy spread reaches 48 points at 128k tokens. Fabrication never occurs (0/5,760 probes), and sycophancy stays negligible (<=8.3%). What rises sharply near each model's context ceiling is outright refusal to answer (0% to 79-90%), distinct from sycophancy or fabrication. Neither pre-registered format ordering holds, and token overhead (+22% to +37% over plain text) further changes which format is preferable where accuracy spread is genuine. We release the full harness, corpus generator, and raw results (VeyraBench): https://github.com/iNetanel/veyrabench
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.