Prompt Sensitivity

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Prompt sensitivity studies how models respond to changes such as paraphrases, word order, option labels, examples, schemas, and contextual framing, including when the intended meaning stays the same. Researchers measure output flips, score variance, consistency, and ranking changes across controlled prompt variants, and use prompt aggregation, robustness training, and internal-state analyses to explain or reduce these effects. The issue spans language, vision-language, clinical, safety, and benchmark settings, where prompt choices can affect both correctness and behavior. A central tension is that greater consistency does not guarantee correctness or safety, and methods that help in one model or task may fail in another.

Latest papers

115 papers18 papers in the last four weeks, up 38% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Apr 4, 2026

Testing the Limits of Truth Directions in LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to encode truth of statements in their activation space along a linear truth direction. Previous studies have argued that these directions are universal in certain aspects, while more recent work has questioned this conclusion drawing on limited generalization across some settings. In this work, we identify a number of limits of truth-direction universality that have not been previously understood. We first show that truth directions are highly layer-dependent, and that a full understanding of universality requires probing at many layers in the model. We then show that truth directions depend heavily on task type, emerging in earlier layers for factual and later layers for reasoning tasks; they also vary in performance across levels of task complexity. Finally, we show that model instructions can affect truth directions; simple correctness evaluation instructions significantly affect the geometry and the generalization ability of the truth probes. Our findings indicate that universality claims for truth directions are more limited than previously known, with significant differences observable for various model layers, task difficulties, task types, and prompt templates.

Angelos Poulis, Mark Crovella, Evimaria Terzi

Department of Computer Science, Boston University · Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences, Boston University

LLM Interpretability Linear Probing Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 31, 2026

LLM Essay Scoring Under Holistic and Analytic Rubrics: Prompt Effects and Bias

Despite growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for educational assessment, it remains unclear how closely they align with human scoring. We present a systematic evaluation of instruction-tuned LLMs across three open essay-scoring datasets (ASAP 2.0, ELLIPSE, and DREsS) that cover both holistic and analytic scoring. We analyze agreement with human consensus scores, directional bias, and the stability of bias estimates. Our results show that strong open-weight models achieve moderate to high agreement with humans on holistic scoring (Quadratic Weighted Kappa about 0.6), but this does not transfer uniformly to analytic scoring. In particular, we observe large and stable negative directional bias on Lower-Order Concern (LOC) traits, such as Grammar and Conventions, meaning that models often score these traits more harshly than human raters. We also find that concise keyword-based prompts generally outperform longer rubric-style prompts in multi-trait analytic scoring. To quantify the amount of data needed to detect these systematic deviations, we compute the minimum sample size at which a 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the mean bias excludes zero. This analysis shows that LOC bias is often detectable with very small validation sets, whereas Higher-Order Concern (HOC) traits typically require much larger samples. These findings support a bias-correction-first deployment strategy: instead of relying on raw zero-shot scores, systematic score offsets can be estimated and corrected using small human-labeled bias-estimation sets, without requiring large-scale fine-tuning.

Filip J. Kucia, Anirban Chakraborty, Anna Wróblewska

Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland · University of Wolverhampton, UK

Automated Essay Scoring Language Model Bias Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 30, 2026

Prompts Without Evidence: How Neuroimaging Mentions Shift Clinical Vision-Language Model Predictions

Trustworthy clinical AI must use real evidence and avoid relying on surface-level artifacts. We evaluate 12 open-weight vision-language models (VLMs) on two clinical neuroimaging cohorts for binary classification of affective disorders and cognitive decline. Both cohorts include structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquired under their original research protocols. Prior work does not establish the included neuroimaging inputs as reliable stand-alone diagnostic evidence for the present tasks. Nevertheless, when neuroimaging context is introduced, smaller VLMs gain up to 0.66 F1 under the evaluated augmented conditions, becoming competitive with models an order of magnitude larger. Confidence estimation shows that most of the calibration improvement for the analyzed smaller models occurs after the MRI reference is added to the prompt, before any image is supplied. Our preliminary expert case study finds that faithfulness remains low in every condition examined, with the reviewed model introducing unverified clinical details. Finally, in our single-model intervention, preference alignment suppresses MRI-referencing behavior but reduces the augmented-condition advantage, leaving the underlying issue unresolved. These results caution against reading surface metric gains as evidence of true multimodal integration, with direct implications for clinical VLM deployment.

Doan Nam Long Vu, Simone Balloccu

Natural Language Processing for Expert Domains (ExpNLP), Technical University of Darmstadt

Medical VLMs Prompt Sensitivity Faithfulness in VLMs VLM Calibration Counterfactual Evaluation of VLMs

Mar 27, 2026

ATime-Consistent Benchmark for Repository-Level Software Engineering Evaluation

Evaluation of repository-aware software engineering systems is often confounded by synthetic task design, prompt leakage, and temporal contamination between repository knowledge and future code changes. We present a time-consistent benchmark methodology that snapshots a repository at time T0, constructs repository-derived code knowledge using only artifacts available before T0, and evaluates on engineering tasks derived from pull requests merged in the future interval (T0, T1]. Each historical pull request is transformed into a natural-language task through an LLM-assisted prompt-generation pipeline, and the benchmark is formalized as a matched A/B comparison in which the same software engineering agent is evaluated with and without repository-derived code knowledge while all other variables are held constant. We also report a baseline characterization study on two open-source repositories, DragonFly and React, using three Claude-family models and four prompt granularities. Across both repositories, file-level F1 increases monotonically from minimal to guided prompts, reaching 0.8081 on DragonFly and 0.8078 on React for the strongest tested model. These results show that prompt construction is a first-order benchmark variable. More broadly, the benchmark highlights that temporal consistency and prompt control are core validity requirements for repository-aware software engineering evaluation.

Xianpeng, Sun, Haonan Sun +5

Simon

Software Engineering Benchmarks Temporal Data Leakage Repository-Level Code Generation Benchmark Auditing Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 27, 2026

A Regression Framework for Understanding Prompt Component Impact on LLM Performance

As large language models (LLMs) continue to improve and see further integration into software systems, so does the need to understand the conditions in which they will perform. We contribute a statistical framework for understanding the impact of specific prompt features on LLM performance. The approach extends previous explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) methods specifically to inspect LLMs by fitting regression models relating portions of the prompt to LLM evaluation. We apply our method to compare how two open-source models, Mistral-7B and GPT-OSS-20B, leverage the prompt to perform a simple arithmetic problem. Regression models of individual prompt portions explain 72% and 77% of variation in model performances, respectively. We find misinformation in the form of incorrect example query-answer pairs impedes both models from solving the arithmetic query, though positive examples do not find significant variability in the impact of positive and negative instructions - these prompts have contradictory effects on model performance. The framework serves as a tool for decision makers in critical scenarios to gain granular insight into how the prompt influences an LLM to solve a task.

Andrew Lauziere, Jonathan Daugherty, Taisa Kushner

Galois, Inc.

LLM Prompting LLM Interpretability Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 26, 2026

When Chain-of-Thought Backfires: Evaluating Prompt Sensitivity in Medical Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in medical settings, yet their sensitivity to prompt formatting remains poorly characterized. We evaluate MedGemma (4B and 27B parameters) on MedMCQA (4,183 questions) and PubMedQA (1,000 questions) across a broad suite of robustness tests. Our experiments reveal several concerning findings. Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting decreases accuracy by 5.7% compared to direct answering. Few-shot examples degrade performance by 11.9% while increasing position bias from 0.14 to 0.47. Shuffling answer options causes the model to change predictions 59.1% of the time, with accuracy dropping up to 27.4 percentage points. Front-truncating context to 50% causes accuracy to plummet below the no-context baseline, yet back-truncation preserves 97% of full-context accuracy. We further show that cloze scoring (selecting the highest log-probability option token) achieves 51.8% (4B) and 64.5% (27B), surpassing all prompting strategies and revealing that models "know" more than their generated text shows. Permutation voting recovers 4 percentage points over single-ordering inference. These results demonstrate that prompt engineering techniques validated on general-purpose models do not transfer to domain-specific medical LLMs, and that reliable alternatives exist.

Binesh Sadanandan, Vahid Behzadan

SAIL Lab, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Prompting Language Model Robustness Medical LLMs Clinical Language Model Evaluation Medical QA

Mar 24, 2026

How Utilitarian Are OpenAI's Models Really? Replicating and Reinterpreting Pfeffer, Krügel, and Uhl (2025)

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.

Johannes Himmelreich

Prompt Sensitivity Moral Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Refusal Behavior Large Reasoning Models Moral Reasoning

Mar 22, 2026

Consistent but Dangerous: Per-Sample Safety Classification Reveals False Reliability in Medical Vision-Language Models

Consistency under paraphrase, the property that semantically equivalent prompts yield identical predictions, is increasingly used as a proxy for reliability when deploying medical vision-language models (VLMs). We show this proxy is fundamentally flawed: a model can achieve perfect consistency by relying on text patterns rather than the input image. We introduce a four-quadrant per-sample safety taxonomy that jointly evaluates consistency (stable predictions across paraphrased prompts) and image reliance (predictions that change when the image is removed). Samples are classified as Ideal (consistent and image-reliant), Fragile (inconsistent but image-reliant), Dangerous (consistent but not image-reliant), or Worst (inconsistent and not image-reliant). Evaluating five medical VLM configurations across two chest X-ray datasets (MIMIC-CXR, PadChest), we find that LoRA fine-tuning dramatically reduces flip rates but shifts a majority of samples into the Dangerous quadrant: LLaVA-Rad Base achieves a 1.5% flip rate on PadChest while 98.5% of its samples are Dangerous. Critically, Dangerous samples exhibit high accuracy (up to 99.6%) and low entropy, making them invisible to standard confidence-based screening. We observe a negative correlation between flip rate and Dangerous fraction (r = -0.89, n=10) and recommend that deployment evaluations always pair consistency checks with a text-only baseline: a single additional forward pass that exposes the false reliability trap.

Binesh Sadanandan, Vahid Behzadan

SAIL Lab, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT, USA

VLM Evaluation Medical VLMs Faithfulness in VLMs Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 19, 2026

Is Evaluation Awareness Just Format Sensitivity? Limitations of Probe-Based Evidence under Controlled Prompt Structure

Prior work uses linear probes on benchmark prompts as evidence of evaluation awareness in large language models. Because evaluation context is typically entangled with benchmark format and genre, it is unclear whether probe-based signals reflect context or surface structure. We test whether these signals persist under partial control of prompt format using a controlled 2x2 dataset and diagnostic rewrites. We find that probes primarily track benchmark-canonical structure and fail to generalize to free-form prompts independent of linguistic style. Thus, standard probe-based methodologies do not reliably disentangle evaluation context from structural artifacts, limiting the evidential strength of existing results.

Viliana Devbunova

Yandex Belgrade, Serbia

Evaluation Awareness in Language Models Language Model Probing Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 19, 2026

Language Model Maps for Prompt-Response Distributions via Log-Likelihood Vectors

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.

Momose Oyama, Yusuke Takase, Hidetoshi Shimodaira

Kyoto University · RIKEN

Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 16, 2026

When Stability Fails: Hidden Failure Modes Of LLMS in Data-Constrained Scientific Decision-Making

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as decision-support tools in data-constrained scientific workflows, where correctness and validity are critical. However, evaluation practices often emphasize stability or reproducibility across repeated runs. While these properties are desirable, stability alone does not guar- antee agreement with statistical ground truth when such references are available. We introduce a controlled behavioral evaluation framework that explicitly sep- arates four dimensions of LLM decision-making: stability, correctness, prompt sensitivity, and output validity under fixed statistical inputs. We evaluate multi- ple LLMs using a statistical gene prioritization task derived from differential ex- pression analysis across prompt regimes involving strict and relaxed significance thresholds, borderline ranking scenarios, and minor wording variations. Our ex- periments show that LLMs can exhibit near-perfect run-to-run stability while sys- tematically diverging from statistical ground truth, over-selecting under relaxed thresholds, responding sharply to minor prompt wording changes, or producing syntactically plausible gene identifiers absent from the input table. Although sta- bility reflects robustness across repeated runs, it does not guarantee agreement with statistical ground truth in structured scientific decision tasks. These findings highlight the importance of explicit ground-truth validation and output validity checks when deploying LLMs in automated or semi-automated scientific work- flows.

Nazia Riasat

North Dakota State University

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Language Model Generation Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 12, 2026

Evaluation format, not only model capability, shapes measured triage failure in consumer health AI

A recent Nature Medicine study reported that ChatGPT Health under-triages 51.6% of emergencies and concluded that consumer-facing AI triage poses safety risks. Its protocol, however, was an exam-style scaffold (forced A/B/C/D output, knowledge suppression, no clarifying questions) unlike how consumers use health chatbots. We ask how much of the headline error rate is a property of the measurement rather than of the models. In a first, mechanistic study, five frontier LLMs on a 17-scenario bank scored 6.4 points higher under naturalistic patient-style messages than under the constrained scaffold (p=0.015). In a second, faithful replication we ran the authors' own 60 released vignettes through six frontier models under four matched formats, with clinician validation of the rewrites and a blinded clinician audit of the LLM adjudicators. Here the direction reversed: free-text rewrites scored slightly below the exact prompt (78.7% vs 81.8%, p=0.020), removing only the answer scaffold changed little (80.6% vs 81.4%, p=0.81), and naturalistic input with a forced categorical answer beat both the exact prompt (84.4%, p=0.023) and free text (p=0.0001). On the four vignettes defining the original emergency rate, under-triage was 17% with the exact scaffold, 50% in free text, and 21% with a forced letter on the same message; every free-text "under-triage" was a same-day recommendation scored C rather than D, and 60% made escalation conditional on information the patient was asked to check, behavior a single-turn benchmark cannot score. The headline rate did not reproduce as a stable cross-model finding; much of it depends on output format and on mapping prose onto a four-point scale. Each format elicits a separate response, so the design measures format sensitivity, not format versus capability. Safety claims should report sensitivity to input wording, output format and adjudication.

David Fraile Navarro, Jialei Sheng, Farah Magrabi +1

Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia · NSW Health, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Safety Benchmarks Clinical Language Model Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity Clinical Triage

Mar 9, 2026

Disentangling Prompt Dependence to Evaluate Segmentation Reliability in Gynecological MRI

Promptable segmentation models (e.g., the Segment Anything Models) enable generalizable, zero-shot segmentation across diverse domains. Although predictions are deterministic for a fixed image-prompt pair, the robustness of these models to variations in user prompts, referred to as prompt dependence, remains underexplored. In safety-critical workflows with substantial inter-user variability, interpretable and informative frameworks are needed to evaluate prompt dependence. In this work, we assess the reliability of promptable segmentation by analyzing and measuring its sensitivity to prompt variability. We introduce the first formulation of prompt dependence that explicitly disentangles prompt ambiguity (inter-user variability) from local sensitivity (interaction imprecision), offering an interpretable view of segmentation robustness. Experiments on two female pelvic MRI datasets for uterus and bladder segmentation reveal a strong negative correlation between both metrics and segmentation performance, highlighting the value of our framework for assessing robustness. The two metrics have low mutual correlation, supporting the disentangled design of our formulation, and provide meaningful indicators of prompt-related failure modes.

Elodie Germani, Krystel Nyangoh-Timoh, Pierre Jannin +1

UR, LTSI · Laboratoire Traitement du Signal et de l’Image (LTSI, INSERM UMR 1099), Université de Rennes, Rennes, France · LTSI +1

Prompt Sensitivity Promptable Image Segmentation Interactive Medical Image Segmentation

Mar 5, 2026

The Fragility Of Moral Judgment In Large Language Models

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for everyday moral and interpersonal guidance, yet these systems cannot interrogate missing context and judge dilemmas as presented. We introduce a perturbation framework for testing the stability and manipulability of LLM moral judgments while holding the underlying moral conflict constant. Using 2,939 dilemmas from r/AmItheAsshole (January-March 2025), we generate three families of content perturbations: surface edits (lexical/structural noise), point-of-view shifts (voice and stance neutralization), and persuasion cues (self-positioning, social proof, pattern admissions, victim framing). We also vary the evaluation protocol (output ordering, instruction placement, and unstructured prompting). We evaluated all variants with four models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3, Qwen2.5-72B) (N=129,156 judgments). Surface perturbations produce low flip rates (7.5%), largely within the self-consistency noise floor (4-13%), whereas point-of-view shifts induce substantially higher instability (24.3%). A large subset of dilemmas (37.9%) is robust to surface noise yet flips under perspective changes, indicating that models condition on narrative voice as a pragmatic cue. Instability concentrates in morally ambiguous cases; scenarios where no party is assigned blame are most susceptible. Persuasion perturbations yield systematic directional shifts. Protocol choices dominate all other factors: agreement between structured protocols is only 67.6% (kappa=0.55), and only 35.7% of model-scenario units match across all three protocols. These results show that LLM moral judgments are co-produced by narrative form and task scaffolding, raising reproducibility and equity concerns when outcomes depend on presentation skill rather than moral substance.

Tom van Nuenen, Pratik S. Sachdeva

D-Lab, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Prompt Sensitivity Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models Persuasion in Language Models

Mar 4, 2026

When Do Language Models Endorse Limitations on Human Rights Principles?

As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly mediate global information access with the potential to shape public discourse, their alignment with universal human rights principles becomes important to ensure that these rights are abided by in high stakes AI-mediated interactions. In this paper, we evaluate how LLMs navigate trade-offs involving the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), leveraging 1,152 synthetically generated scenarios across 24 rights articles and eight languages. Our analysis of eleven major LLMs reveals systematic biases where models: (1) accept limiting Economic, Social, and Cultural rights more often than Political and Civil rights, (2) demonstrate significant cross-linguistic variation with elevated endorsement rates of rights-limiting actions in Chinese and Hindi compared to English or Romanian, (3) show substantial susceptibility to prompt-based steering, and (4) exhibit noticeable differences between Likert and open-ended responses, highlighting critical challenges in LLM preference assessment.

Keenan Samway, Nicole Miu Takagi, Rada Mihalcea +4

Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany · Jinesis AI Lab, University of Toronto & Vector Institute · University of Michigan +2

LLM Alignment Language Model Bias Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity Multilingual Language Model Evaluation

Mar 1, 2026

Prompt Sensitivity and Answer Consistency of Small Open-Source Language Models for Clinical Question Answering in Low-Resource Healthcare

Small open-source language models are gaining attention for healthcare applications in low-resource settings where cloud infrastructure and GPU hardware may be unavailable. However, the reliability of these models under different phrasings of the same clinical question remains poorly understood. We evaluate five open-source models (Gemma 2 2B, Phi-3 Mini 3.8B, Llama 3.2 3B, Mistral 7B, and Meditron-7B, a domain-pretrained model without instruction tuning) across three clinical question answering datasets (MedQA, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA) using five prompt styles: original, formal, simplified, roleplay, and direct. Model behavior is evaluated using consistency scores, accuracy, and instruction-following failure rates. All experiments were conducted locally on consumer CPU hardware without fine-tuning. Consistency and accuracy were largely independent across models. Gemma 2 achieved the highest consistency (0.845-0.888) but the lowest accuracy (33.0-43.5%), while Llama 3.2 showed moderate consistency (0.774-0.807) alongside the highest accuracy (49.0-65.0%). Roleplay prompts consistently reduced accuracy across all models, with Phi-3 Mini dropping 21.5 percentage points on MedQA. Meditron-7B exhibited near-complete instruction-following failure on PubMedQA (99.0% UNKNOWN rate), indicating that domain pretraining alone is insufficient for structured clinical question answering. These findings show that high consistency does not imply correctness: models can be reliably wrong, a dangerous failure mode in clinical AI. Llama 3.2 demonstrated the strongest balance of accuracy and reliability for low-resource deployment. Safe clinical AI requires joint evaluation of consistency, accuracy, and instruction adherence.

Shravani Hariprasad

Independent Researcher

Clinical Language Model Evaluation Prompt Sensitivity Small Language Models Clinical QA Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Instruction Following

Feb 27, 2026

Brittlebench: Quantifying LLM robustness via prompt sensitivity

Existing evaluation methods largely rely on clean, static benchmarks, which can overestimate true model performance by failing to capture the noise and variability inherent in real-world user inputs. This is especially true for language models, which can face human-generated text queries containing mistakes, typos, or alternative ways of phrasing the same question. In this work, we introduce a theoretical framework for quantifying model sensitivity to prompt variants, or brittleness, that can enable us to disentangle data-induced difficulty from prompt-related variability. Using this framework, we design a novel evaluation pipeline, Brittlebench, to holistically evaluate the sensitivity of frontier models. We apply semantics-preserving perturbations to a suite of popular benchmarks, and observe model performance to degrade as much as 12%. However, these perturbations do not affect all models equally: even a single perturbation alters the relative ranking of models in 63% of cases, impacting conclusions about comparative model performance. Decomposing the total variance of both state-of-the-art open-weight and commercial models, we find that semantics-preserving input perturbations can account for up to half of the performance variance for a given model. Brittlebench highlights the need for more robust evaluations and models, and allows us to systematically understand model brittleness.

Angelika Romanou, Mark Ibrahim, Candace Ross +8

FAIR at Meta · EPFL · Northeastern University

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Language Model Robustness

Feb 25, 2026

Scaling In, Not Up? Testing Thick Citation Context Analysis with GPT-5 and Fragile Prompts

This paper tests whether large language models (LLMs) can support interpretative citation context analysis (CCA) by scaling in thick, text-grounded readings of a single hard case rather than scaling up typological labels. It foregrounds prompt-sensitivity analysis as a methodological issue by varying prompt scaffolding and framing in a balanced 2x3 design. Using footnote 6 in Chubin and Moitra (1975) and Gilbert's (1977) reconstruction as a probe, I implement a two-stage GPT-5 pipeline: a citation-text-only surface classification and expectation pass, followed by cross-document interpretative reconstruction using the citing and cited full texts. Across 90 reconstructions, the model produces 450 distinct hypotheses. Close reading and inductive coding identify 21 recurring interpretative moves, and linear probability models estimate how prompt choices shift their frequencies and lexical repertoire. GPT-5's surface pass is highly stable, consistently classifying the citation as "supplementary". In reconstruction, the model generates a structured space of plausible alternatives, but scaffolding and examples redistribute attention and vocabulary, sometimes toward strained readings. Relative to Gilbert, GPT-5 detects the same textual hinges yet more often resolves them as lineage and positioning than as admonishment. The study outlines opportunities and risks of using LLMs as guided co-analysts for inspectable, contestable interpretative CCA, and it shows that prompt scaffolding and framing systematically tilt which plausible readings and vocabularies the model foregrounds.

Arno Simons

Technische Universität Berlin

Scientific Communication Prompt Sensitivity LLM Prompting

Feb 23, 2026

What Makes a Good Query? Measuring the Impact of Human-Confusing Linguistic Features on LLM Performance

Large Language Model (LLM) hallucinations are usually treated as defects of the model or its decoding strategy. Drawing on classical linguistics, we argue that a query's form can also shape a listener's (and model's) response. We operationalize this insight by constructing a 22-dimension query feature vector covering clause complexity, lexical rarity, and anaphora, negation, answerability, and intention grounding, all known to affect human comprehension. Using 369,837 real-world queries, we ask: Are there certain types of queries that make hallucination more likely? A large-scale analysis reveals a consistent "risk landscape": certain features such as deep clause nesting and underspecification align with higher hallucination propensity. In contrast, clear intention grounding and answerability align with lower hallucination rates. Others, including domain specificity, show mixed, dataset- and model-dependent effects. Thus, these findings establish an empirically observable query-feature representation correlated with hallucination risk, paving the way for guided query rewriting and future intervention studies.

William Watson, Nicole Cho, Sumitra Ganesh +1

J.P. Morgan AI Research

Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability Prompt Sensitivity

Feb 19, 2026

Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established standardized evaluation benchmarks as the primary instrument for model comparison. Yet, their reliability is increasingly questioned due to sensitivity to shallow variations in input prompts. This paper examines how controlled, truth-conditionally equivalent lexical and syntactic perturbations affect the absolute performance and relative ranking of 23 contemporary LLMs across three benchmarks: MMLU, SQuAD, and AMEGA. We employ two linguistically principled pipelines to generate meaning-preserving variations: one performing synonym substitution for lexical changes, and another using dependency parsing to determine applicable syntactic transformations. Results show that lexical perturbations consistently induce substantial, statistically significant performance degradation across nearly all models and tasks, while syntactic perturbations have more heterogeneous effects, occasionally improving results. Both perturbation types destabilize model leaderboards on complex tasks. Furthermore, model robustness did not consistently scale with model size, revealing strong task dependence. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs rely more on surface-level lexical patterns than on abstract linguistic competence, underscoring the need for robustness testing as a standard component of LLM evaluation.

Bogdan Kostić, Conor Fallon, Julian Risch +1

Berliner Hochschule für Technik (BHT) - Luxemburger Straße 10, 13467 Berlin · deepset GmbH - Zinnowitzer Straße 1, 10115 Berlin

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Language Model Robustness Adversarial Perturbations

Nov 27, 2025

Unexplored flaws in multiple-choice VQA make benchmarking unreliable

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.

Fabio Rosenthal, Sebastian Schmidt, Thorsten Graf +3

Technical University of Munich · Volkswagen AG · Helmholtz AI +1

Visual Question Answering Prompt Sensitivity Multimodal QA Benchmark Validity Multimodal Model Evaluation

Jun 19, 2025

Measuring Intent Comprehension in LLMs

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.

Nadav Kunievsky, James A. Evans

Knowlesdge Lab, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA · Knowledge Lab, Data Science Institute, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Intent Classification Language Model Robustness

Mar 4, 2025

Multidimensional Consistency Improves Reasoning in Language Models

While Large language models (LLMs) have proved able to address some complex reasoning tasks, we also know that they are highly sensitive to input variation, which can lead to different solution paths and final answers. Answer consistency across input variations can thus be taken as a sign of stronger confidence. Leveraging this aspect, we introduce a framework where models are systematically pushed to diversify solution paths towards a final answer, thereby testing them for answer consistency across multiple input variations. Focusing on math problems, we induce variations in (i) order of shots in prompt, (ii) problem phrasing, and (iii) languages used. Experiments on a wide range of open-source LLMs of various sizes show that reasoning consistency differs by variation dimension, and that by aggregating consistency across dimensions, our framework enhances mathematical reasoning performance on monolingual datasets GSM8K and MATH500, and the multilingual dataset MGSM. We also discuss the different efficacy of the types of variations induced and how they could be further leveraged in future work.

Huiyuan Lai, Xiao Zhang, Malvina Nissim

CLCG, University of Groningen / The Netherlands

Reasoning Consistency in Language Models LLM Mathematical Reasoning Prompt Sensitivity

Feb 6, 2025

PixFoundation: Are We Heading in the Right Direction with Pixel-level Vision Foundation Models?

Multiple works have emerged to push the boundaries of multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) towards pixel-level understanding. The current trend is to train MLLMs with pixel-level grounding supervision in terms of masks on large-scale labelled data and specialized decoders for the segmentation task. However, we show that such MLLMs when evaluated on recent challenging vision-centric benchmarks, exhibit a weak ability in visual question answering (VQA). Surprisingly, some of these methods even downgrade the grounding ability of MLLMs that were never trained with such pixel-level supervision. In this work, we propose two novel challenging benchmarks with paired evaluation for both VQA and grounding. We demonstrate that simple baselines that are not unified achieve performance that matches or surpasses some of the pixel-level MLLMs. Our paired benchmarks and evaluation enable additional analysis on whether the failure stems from VQA and/or grounding abilities. Furthermore, we propose a paired prompt sensitivity analysis on both the language and visual prompts tailored for the grounding task. Our benchmarking pushes pixel-level MLLMs to improve in both accuracy and robustness, without sacrificing language abilities. More importantly, we study the research question of ``When does grounding emerge in MLLMs with respect to the output tokens?'' We propose a post-hoc interpretability tool that can be plugged into any MLLM to study the aforementioned question. We show that grounding does not necessarily coincide with the exact referring expression in the output, but can coincide with the object parts, its location, appearance, context or state. Code and datasets are publicly available at https://msiam.github.io/PixFoundationSeries/.

Mennatullah Siam

Large Vision-Language Models Vision-Language Grounding VLM Evaluation VLM Interpretability Prompt Sensitivity

Mar 31, 2024

Algorithmic Collusion by Large Language Models

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.

Sara Fish, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Ran I. Shorrer

†School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University · ‡Department of Economics and Department of Computer Science, Harvard University · §Department of Economics, Penn State University

Prompt Sensitivity Algorithmic Collusion Dynamic Pricing Multi-Agent LLMs