AfriSyCo: Measuring Assertive Framing, Verification, and Wording Sensitivity Around African-Language Content

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated in multilingual settings, yet their inference behavior in low-resource African languages remains underexplored especially under pure prompting without fine-tuning. We present a systematic study of prompting strategies for Natural Language Inference (NLI) in Swahili, Yoruba, and Hausa using the AfriXNLI benchmark. We evaluate five prompting strategies Baseline (zero-shot), Script-Aware, Language Specific, Contrastive, and Native-Label Self-Translation (NL-STP) across two mid-sized open weight models (Llama3.2-3B and Gemma3-4B). To isolate the effect of prompt design, the effect of few-shot examples and Chain-of-Thought reasoning is eliminated in our study. We find a significant difference in performance of class wise across strategies with highly neutral class collapse and high prediction skew in some configurations. Contrastive prompting proves to be the most reliable and steadily improving strategy over language and model and has better balance of class behavior and balance of overall accuracy gains. Notably, well-constructed prompts are sufficient to beat more powerful baselines that are provided with few-shot prompts and Chain-of-Thought prompts. We have found that prompt formulation is essential to multilingual NLI with low-resource languages and that language aware decision structuring can be used to meaningfully enhance robustness in resource challenged settings.

Large language models often answer the same multiple-choice question inconsistently when it is posed under support-oriented and elimination-oriented framings. We investigate whether these discrepancies arise from different internal representations induced by the two framings. We introduce a dual-framing protocol with minimally varied prompts that use either support- or elimination-oriented framing while keeping the evaluation target fixed. To probe the internal computation, we append an untrained special token, [STATE], and treat its residual-stream activation as an intervention interface. Across both models, the two framings induce separable [STATE] activations concentrated in intermediate layers. Swapping these activations between paired prompts systematically changes predictions and improves cross-framing agreement, providing intervention-based evidence that the activations are behaviorally relevant. Beyond instance-level substitution, mean-difference steering directions derived from the dual-framing contrast exhibit more bounded layer-wise responses than matched contrastive activation addition directions under the evaluated protocol.

We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations. Large language models (LLMs) often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users. This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts, and the consequences are highly costly in high-stakes domains. Because in the realistic scenarios, both expert practitioners and non-expert users frequently ask LLMs questions containing incomplete or misleading assumptions, models are highly susceptible to those framings. To test this, we inject the framing bias across three nested levels: a framing-biased question phrasing (root), an injected framing-biased premise prepended to a neutral question (propositional), and a premise paired with a framing-biased question (global). Evaluating nine open models (3.8B-70B) across four families, we find that strong per-variant accuracy does not guarantee the robustness across differently phrased questions under the fixed factual information.