Evaluating and Explaining Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs Using Interactions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18539v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 04:45:59 GMT
• Title: Evaluating and Explaining Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs Using Interactions
• Abstract summary: Even subtle and semantically irrelevant changes in prompts can cause dramatic fluctuations in performance.<n>We propose an Interaction-based Prompt Sensitivity metric by quantifying changes in interactions when we introduce subtle changes to prompts.
• Score: 10.595427068095397
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The remarkable capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are often undermined by their instability. Even subtle and semantically irrelevant changes in prompts can cause dramatic fluctuations in performance, a phenomenon known as prompt sensitivity. Previous studies typically evaluate prompt sensitivity by comparing the LLM's final outputs when prompts change. However, such coarse-grained metrics fail to explain the internal reasons for prompt sensitivity. In this paper, we introduce interactions as a fine-grained tool to analyze prompt sensitivity of LLMs. Specifically, we decompose the output score of the LLM into a set of interactions. Each interaction represents a nonlinear relationship involving a set of input variables. We discover that subtle changes to prompts can trigger severe instability in interactions, even when the outputs of the LLM remain the same. To this end, we propose an Interaction-based Prompt Sensitivity (IPS) metric by quantifying changes in interactions when we introduce subtle changes to prompts. We apply the IPS metric to 50 open-source LLMs and uncover four factors that reduce the prompt sensitivity of LLMs, including supervised fine-tuning, increased model scales, dense architectures, and few-shot learning. More crucially, we discover a common mechanism by which these four factors reduce prompt sensitivity: all four factors tend to reduce the prompt sensitivity of low-order interactions (i.e., interactions involving few input variables).

Related papers

• Toxic HallucinAItions: Perturbing Prompts and Tracing LLM Circuits [17.92293259974243]
  We study how lexical and tone-based prompt perturbations affect the factual reliability of large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that toxic lexical perturbations consistently reduce factual accuracy and increase uncertainty, while polite phrasing yields limited and inconsistent changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T06:58:47Z)
• Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity [24.53996114318076]
  Prompt sensitivity refers to how strongly the output of a large language model depends on the exact wording of its input prompt.<n>We analyze the relationship between meaning-preserving prompts, their gradients, and the log probabilities of the model's next token.<n>We show that LLMs do not internally cluster similar inputs like smaller neural networks do, but instead disperse them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-20T15:13:33Z)
• Revisiting Prompt Sensitivity in Large Language Models for Text Classification: The Role of Prompt Underspecification [3.2059646106414967]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as zero-shot and few-shot classifiers.<n>We study and compare the sensitivity of underspecified prompts and prompts that provide specific instructions.<n>We find that underspecified prompts exhibit higher performance variance and lower logit values for relevant tokens, while instruction-prompts suffer less from such problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T07:59:28Z)
• Evaluating & Reducing Deceptive Dialogue From Language Models with Multi-turn RL [64.3268313484078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) interact with millions of people worldwide in applications such as customer support, education and healthcare.<n>Their ability to produce deceptive outputs, whether intentionally or inadvertently, poses significant safety concerns.<n>We investigate the extent to which LLMs engage in deception within dialogue, and propose the belief misalignment metric to quantify deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T05:29:36Z)
• Flaw or Artifact? Rethinking Prompt Sensitivity in Evaluating LLMs [34.51801559719707]
  High prompt sensitivity has been widely accepted as a core limitation of large language models.<n>This work asks: Is the widely reported high prompt sensitivity truly an inherent weakness of LLMs, or is it largely an artifact of evaluation processes?<n>We find that much of the prompt sensitivity stems from evaluation methods, including log-likelihood scoring and rigid answer matching.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-01T21:38:28Z)
• Sensitivity Meets Sparsity: The Impact of Extremely Sparse Parameter Patterns on Theory-of-Mind of Large Language Models [55.46269953415811]
  We identify ToM-sensitive parameters and show that perturbing as little as 0.001% of these parameters significantly degrades ToM performance.<n>Our results have implications for enhancing model alignment, mitigating biases, and improving AI systems designed for human interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T17:45:42Z)
• ProSA: Assessing and Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs [72.13489820420726]
  ProSA is a framework designed to evaluate and comprehend prompt sensitivity in large language models. Our study uncovers that prompt sensitivity fluctuates across datasets and models, with larger models exhibiting enhanced robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T09:38:13Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established.<n>This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt.<n>We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity? [50.67313477651395]
  We present a comprehensive prompt analysis based on the sensitivity of a function. We use gradient-based saliency scores to empirically demonstrate how different prompts affect the relevance of input tokens to the output. We introduce sensitivity-aware decoding which incorporates sensitivity estimation as a penalty term in the standard greedy decoding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T10:52:01Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.