Prompt Sensitivity

Vision-language models enable open-vocabulary object grounding through natural language queries, under the implicit assumption that semantically equivalent descriptions yield consistent outputs. We examine this assumption using a controlled pipeline combining DETR for object proposals with CLIP for language-conditioned selection on 263 COCO val2017 images. We find that overlapping prompts such as "a person," "a human," and "a pedestrian" frequently select different instances, with mean instability of 2.11 distinct selections across six prompts. PCA analysis shows this variability is structured and directional, not random. Prompt ensembling does not improve quality and often shifts selections toward generic regions. We further show that text embedding proximity explains only 34% of grounding disagreement (r = -0.58), confirming that instability arises from the argmax selection mechanism rather than text-level distances alone.

Text-driven inversion of generative models is a core paradigm for manipulating 2D or 3D content, unlocking numerous applications such as text-based editing, style transfer, or inverse problems. However, it relies on the assumption that generative models remain sensitive to natural language prompts. We demonstrate that for state-of-the-art native text-to-3D generative models, this assumption often collapses. We identify a critical failure mode where generation trajectories are drawn into latent ``sink traps'': regions where the model becomes insensitive to prompt modifications. In these regimes, changes to the input text fail to alter internal representations in a way that alters the output geometry. Crucially, we observe that this is not a limitation of the model's \textit{geometric} expressivity; the same generative models possess the ability to produce a vast diversity of shapes but, as we demonstrate, become insensitive to out-of-distribution \textit{text} guidance. We investigate this behavior by analyzing the sampling trajectories of the generative model, and find that complex geometries can still be represented and produced by leveraging the model's unconditional generative prior. This leads to a more robust framework for text-based 3D shape editing that bypasses latent sinks by decoupling a model's geometric representation power from its linguistic sensitivity. Our approach addresses the limitations of current 3D pipelines and enables high-fidelity semantic manipulation of out-of-distribution 3D shapes. Project webpage: https://daidedou.sorpi.fr/publication/beyondprompts

Prompt optimization in compound AI systems is statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip: across 72 optimization runs on Claude Haiku 4.5 (6 methods $\times$ 4 tasks $\times$ 3 repeats), 49% score below zero-shot; on Amazon Nova Lite, the failure rate is even higher. Yet on one task, all six methods improve over zero-shot by up to $+6.8$ points. What distinguishes success from failure? We investigate with 18,000 grid evaluations and 144 optimization runs, testing two assumptions behind end-to-end optimization tools like TextGrad and DSPy, in the order they must be answered: (A) agent prompts interact, requiring joint rather than independent optimization, and (B) individual prompts are worth optimizing at all. Interaction effects are never significant ($p > 0.52$, all $F < 1.0$), and optimization helps only when the task has exploitable output structure: a format the model can produce but does not default to. We further give a mechanistic account: instruction-tuning compresses input phrasing into a narrow output distribution, eliminating the very phrasing-sensitivity that joint optimization assumes. We provide a two-stage diagnostic: an $80 ANOVA pre-test for agent coupling, and a 10-minute headroom test that predicts whether optimization is worthwhile, turning a coin flip into an informed decision.

Pfeffer, Krügel, and Uhl (2025) report that OpenAI's reasoning model o1-mini produces more utilitarian responses to the trolley problem and footbridge dilemma than the non-reasoning model GPT-4o, and they raise the question whether growing reasoning capabilities bring about a "utilitarian turn" in LLMs. I extend their exploratory study in a direction they call for: with four current OpenAI models and systematic prompt variation. On the trolley dilemma, the hypothesized utilitarian turn is not confirmed. GPT-4o's low utilitarian rate reflects safety refusals triggered by the prompt's advisory framing rather than a deontological commitment; on reformulated prompt variants -- for instance, agent-neutral "Is it morally permissible...?" instead of advisory "Should I...?" -- all four models, reasoning or not, converge on utilitarian answers. The footbridge finding is partially confirmed: reasoning models tend to give more utilitarian responses than non-reasoning models across prompt variations, but they often refuse to answer or answer non-utilitarian. These results demonstrate that single-prompt evaluations of LLM moral responses are unreliable: multi-prompt robustness testing should be standard practice for any empirical claims about LLM behavior.

We propose a method that represents language models by log-likelihood vectors over prompt-response pairs and constructs model maps for comparing their conditional distributions. In this space, squared Euclidean distances between models are approximately proportional to the KL divergence between the corresponding conditional distributions. Experiments on a large collection of publicly available language models show that the maps capture meaningful global structure, including relationships to model attributes and task performance. The representation also captures systematic shifts induced by prompt modifications and their approximate additive compositionality; we use the vectors to predict downstream task scores and leverage their additive structure to approximate the effects of composite prompt operations without directly observing the corresponding log-likelihood vectors. We further introduce PMI vectors to reduce the influence of unconditional distributions; in some cases, PMI-based model maps better reflect training-data-related differences. Overall, the framework supports the analysis and prediction of input-dependent model behavior.

Previous works identify sensitivity to option order as a key issue in multiple-choice VQA (MC-VQA) evaluation and propose protocols to mitigate this effect. We show that such mitigation is insufficient to ensure the validity of MC-VQA as a reliable benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLMs): performance remains highly sensitive to semantically neutral prompt format choices that are not controlled by current benchmarks. In a large-scale study spanning seven MLLMs and five MC-VQAs datasets, we find frequent rank reversals even under order-invariant evaluation. These reversals arise when we systematically vary option ID sets, delimiters, and separators, yielding 48 semantically equivalent prompt formats. Mechanistic analyses trace this instability to low-level language modeling effects: tokenizer-induced fusion or removal of option ID tokens introduces corrupted option ID tokens into the input sequence, while the choice of option ID sets directly affects the reliability of attention patterns for option selection. Accordingly, MC-VQA rankings correlate weakly with open-ended evaluation, indicating that MC-VQA reflects option-selection dynamics in addition to multimodal reasoning. These findings identify prompt formatting as a major, previously under-controlled confounder in MC-VQA benchmarking and motivate evaluation protocols that explicitly control prompt format sensitivity.

People judge interactions with large language models (LLMs) as successful when outputs match what they want, not what they type. Yet LLMs are trained to predict the next token solely from text input, not underlying intent. Because written language is an imperfect proxy for intent, and correlations between phrasing and desired outcomes can break down in training data, models that rely too heavily on surface cues may respond inconsistently to semantically equivalent prompts. This makes it essential to evaluate whether LLMs can reliably infer user intent-especially in high-stakes settings where robustness and generalization are critical. We introduce a formal framework for assessing intent comprehension in LLMs: whether a model demonstrates robust understanding of user intent by producing consistent outputs across semantically equivalent prompts while differentiating between prompts with distinct intents. Our evaluation approach is based on a variance decomposition of model responses into three components: variability due to user intent, user articulation, and model uncertainty. Models that understand what users want, and are not overly sensitive to textual cues, should attribute most output variance to intent differences, rather than articulation style. Applying this framework across diverse domains, we find that, within the five LLaMA and Gemma models we evaluate, larger models typically assign a greater share of variance to intent, indicating stronger comprehension of intent, although gains are uneven and often modest with increasing model size. These results motivate moving beyond accuracy-only benchmarks toward semantic diagnostics that directly assess whether models understand what users intend.

We conduct experiments with algorithmic pricing agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs). In oligopoly settings, LLM-based pricing agents quickly and autonomously reach supracompetitive prices and profits. Variation in seemingly innocuous phrases in LLM instructions ("prompts") substantially influence the degree of supracompetitive pricing. We develop novel techniques for behavioral analysis of LLMs and use them to uncover price-war concerns as a contributing factor. Our results extend to auction settings. Our findings uncover unique challenges to any future regulation of LLM-based pricing agents, and AI-based pricing agents more broadly.