Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs
Zhuonan Yang, Jacob Xiaochen Li, Francisco Velez, Eric Todd, David Bau, Michael L. Littman, Stephen Bach, Ellie Pavlick
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. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task --- which we dub lexical task heads ---and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on19
- Function Vectors in Large Language ModelsEric Todd, Millicent L. Li, Arnab Sen Sharma, Aaron Mueller et al.ICLR 2024 · 229 citations
- Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language ModelsAsma Ghandeharioun, Avi Caciularu, Adam Pearce, Lucas Dixon et al.ICML 2024 · 197 citations
- Linearity of Relation Decoding in Transformer Language ModelsEvan Hernandez, Arnab Sen Sharma, Tal Haklay, Kevin Meng et al.ICLR 2024 · 163 citations
- The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt TuningBrian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, Noah ConstantEMNLP 2021 · 94 citations
- What needs to go right for an induction head? A mechanistic study of in-context learning circuits and their formationAaditya K. Singh, Ted Moskovitz, Felix Hill, Stephanie C. Y. Chan et al.ICML 2024 · 77 citations
Related papers
- Do different prompting methods yield a common task representation in language models?Guy Davidson, Todd M. Gureckis, Brenden M. Lake, Adina WilliamsNeurIPS 2025 · 11 citations
- Identifying and Analyzing Performance-Critical Tokens in Large Language ModelsYu Bai, Heyan Huang, Cesare Spinoso Di Piano, Sanxing Chen et al.AAAI 2026 · 2 citations
- Which Attention Heads Matter for In-Context Learning?Kayo Yin, Jacob SteinhardtICML 2025
- Unveiling the Lexical Sensitivity of LLMs: Combinatorial Optimization for Prompt EnhancementPengwei Zhan, Zhen Xu, Qian Tan, Jie Song et al.EMNLP 2024 · 9 citations
- Are Prompt-based Models Clueless?Pride Kavumba, Ryo Takahashi, Yusuke OdaACL 2022
