pith. sign in

hub Canonical reference

Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting

Canonical reference. 100% of citing Pith papers cite this work as background.

25 Pith papers citing it
Background 100% of classified citations
abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted as a fundamental component of language technologies, it is crucial to accurately characterize their performance. Because choices in prompt design can strongly influence model behavior, this design process is critical in effectively using any modern pre-trained generative language model. In this work, we focus on LLM sensitivity to a quintessential class of meaning-preserving design choices: prompt formatting. We find that several widely used open-source LLMs are extremely sensitive to subtle changes in prompt formatting in few-shot settings, with performance differences of up to 76 accuracy points when evaluated using LLaMA-2-13B. Sensitivity remains even when increasing model size, the number of few-shot examples, or performing instruction tuning. Our analysis suggests that work evaluating LLMs with prompting-based methods would benefit from reporting a range of performance across plausible prompt formats, instead of the currently-standard practice of reporting performance on a single format. We also show that format performance only weakly correlates between models, which puts into question the methodological validity of comparing models with an arbitrarily chosen, fixed prompt format. To facilitate systematic analysis we propose FormatSpread, an algorithm that rapidly evaluates a sampled set of plausible prompt formats for a given task, and reports the interval of expected performance without accessing model weights. Furthermore, we present a suite of analyses that characterize the nature of this sensitivity, including exploring the influence of particular atomic perturbations and the internal representation of particular formats.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 6

citation-polarity summary

roles

background 6

polarities

background 6

representative citing papers

Activation Steering with a Feedback Controller

cs.LG · 2025-10-05 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0

Popular LLM activation steering methods are shown to act as proportional controllers; a PID steering framework is proposed that improves robustness and outperforms baselines in experiments across model families.

Compared to What? Baselines and Metrics for Counterfactual Prompting

cs.CL · 2026-05-01 · conditional · novelty 6.0

Counterfactual prompting effects on LLMs are often indistinguishable from those caused by meaning-preserving paraphrases, causing most previously reported demographic sensitivities to disappear under proper statistical comparison.

The Cartesian Cut in Agentic AI

cs.AI · 2026-04-09 · unverdicted · novelty 5.0

LLM agents use a Cartesian split between learned prediction and engineered control, enabling modularity but creating sensitivity and bottlenecks unlike integrated biological systems.

Position: AI Evaluations Should be Grounded on a Theory of Capability

cs.AI · 2025-09-23 · conditional · novelty 5.0

AI evaluations should be reframed as inference tasks grounded in an explicit theory of capability, with an empirical demonstration that results depend on modeling assumptions and a proposed Evaluation Card for transparency.

citing papers explorer

Showing 25 of 25 citing papers.