arXiv:2604. 22027v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed.
arXiv:2608. 16627v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Natural language explanations (NLEs) are increasingly used as inputs, for example, as few-shot rationales that influence model behavior in in-context learning (ICL).
The paper investigates how small lexical changes in prompts can cause large performance swings in large language models. Using a dataset of 132,000 prompt variants, the authors uncover a scaling law linking higher average task performance to lower variance and greater robustness. They identify domain-specific terminology and explicit action directives as key linguistic factors that stabilize prompts, and propose an automated Prompt-Refining Agent that reduces performance variance by 40.7% in code generation while maintaining or improving mean performance.
arXiv:2602.21223v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: It is not only what we ask large language models (LLMs) to do that matters, but also how we ask them. Phrases like ``This is urgent'' or ``As your...
arXiv:2606. 04057v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now generate substantial production code, often for tasks with multiple valid algorithmic solutions.
Fine‑tuning reshapes internal representations of large language models, affecting attention patterns and layer‑wise activations. The study shows that components identified by EAP as important for task performance cluster in specific layers, yet these layers do not align with those undergoing the largest representational changes. Additionally, overlapping EAP components across different tasks do not guarantee cross‑task transfer and can even degrade performance when tasks differ in nature.
Instruction tuning is often thought to give language models a universal ability to follow instructions, but this study shows otherwise. By probing nine tasks across three models, the authors find that general probes reveal selective, not uniform, deficits, cross‑task transfer is weak and skill‑similar, and causal ablation uncovers sparse, asymmetric dependencies. The results suggest instruction following is a coordinated use of diverse linguistic skills rather than a single shared mechanism.
The paper introduces a fine-grained method called interactions to analyze prompt sensitivity in large language models (LLMs). By decomposing output scores into nonlinear interactions, the authors show that subtle prompt changes can destabilize these interactions even when overall outputs stay unchanged. They propose an Interaction-based Prompt Sensitivity (IPS) metric and use it to evaluate 50 open-source LLMs, finding that supervised fine‑tuning, larger model scales, dense architectures, and few‑shot learning all reduce prompt sensitivity, primarily by stabilizing low‑order interactions.
arXiv:2602. 24287v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In multi-turn conversations, large language models typically condition on the full conversation history: both past user prompts and assistant responses.
arXiv:2606. 26918v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models can serve as capable long-horizon agents, but their out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization remains weak.
arXiv:2602. 23971v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Sycophancy, the tendency of large language models to favour user-affirming responses over critical engagement, has been identified as an alignment failure, particularly in high-stakes advisory and social contexts.
arXiv:2608.27831v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are now commonly evaluated on the SWE-bench family of benchmarks, whose tasks are built from curated GitHub issues--long, structured, a...
As large language models (LLMs) grow more capable, they are increasingly deployed in context-rich settings where task inputs are often accompanied by long, partially irrelevant context. In a controlled setting, we find that state-of-the-art models often appear robust to task-irrelevant context at the aggregate level: prepending it to benchmark questions causes little change in overall accuracy.