LANTERN: Language Model Assessment on Noisy and Transformed Tasks for Understanding Error and Robustness Nuances

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.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to perform tasks with minimal human oversight, it is crucial that these models operate robustly. In particular, a model that can solve a given problem should not fail simply because certain entities$\unicode{x2013}$such as names, numbers, or other contextual details$\unicode{x2013}$have changed while the underlying problem logic remains the same. Prior work suggests that current LLMs still struggle with this form of robustness: they often succeed on some variations of a problem but fail on others. However, existing evaluations often lack a systematic way to identify which logic-preserving variations are most likely to induce failure. Instead, they typically test a random subset of allowable variations, which can overstate robustness. To address this gap, we introduce logic-preserving difficulty scaling (LPDS), a framework that (i) quantifies the difficulty of a problem variation and (ii) systematically searches the space of allowable variations to find those that maximize difficulty and expose failures. We show that as difficulty increases, performance declines and errors in the models' reasoning chains become more pronounced. We further demonstrate that LPDS efficiently finds difficult problem variations for a model, resulting in performance drops up to 5 times larger compared to random sampling. Finally, we show that fine-tuning on more difficult variations leads to more consistent robustness gains than training on easier ones.

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.