Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity
Yang Liu, Chenhui Chu
Abstract
Prompt sensitivity, which refers to how strongly the output of a large language model (LLM) depends on the exact wording of its input prompt, raises concerns among users about the LLM's stability and reliability. In this work, we consider LLMs as multivariate functions and perform a first-order Taylor expansion, thereby analyzing the relationship between meaningpreserving prompts, their gradients, and the log probabilities of the model's next token. We derive an upper bound on the difference between log probabilities using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. We show that LLMs do not internally cluster similar inputs like smaller neural networks do, but instead disperse them. This dispersing behavior leads to an excessively high upper bound on the difference of log probabilities between two meaning-preserving prompts, making it difficult to effectively reduce to 0. In our analysis, we also show which types of meaning-preserving prompt variants are more likely to introduce prompt sensitivity risks in LLMs. In addition, we demonstrate that the upper bound is strongly correlated with an existing prompt sensitivity metric, PromptSensiScore. Moreover, by analyzing the logit variance, we find that prompt templates typically exert a greater influence on logits than the questions themselves. Overall, our results provide a general interpretation for why current LLMs can be highly sensitive to prompts with the same meaning, offering crucial evidence for understanding the prompt sensitivity of LLMs. Code for experiments is available at https://github.com/ku-nlp/ Understanding_the_Prompt_Sensitivity.
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.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 43e06178-d946-4ccd-9e9e-bb57b38b153fBuilds on13
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-shot Performance of Language ModelsZihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein et al.ICML 2021 · 1,843 citations
- Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order SensitivityYao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel et al.ACL 2022 · 1,494 citations
Related papers
- Evaluating and Explaining Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs Using InteractionsRuiyang Qin, Qingzhuo Wang, Tian Wang, Zhihua Wei et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- Mapping from Meaning: Addressing the Miscalibration of Prompt-Sensitive Language ModelsKyle Cox, Jiawei Xu, Yikun Han, Rong Xu et al.AAAI 2025 · 6 citations
- Estimating LLM Consistency: A User Baseline vs Surrogate MetricsXiaoyuan Wu, Weiran Lin, Omer Akgul, Lujo BauerEMNLP 2025
- Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingMelanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, Alane SuhrICLR 2024 · 682 citations
- Benchmarking Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models: A Different Perspective on Model EvaluationXunjian Yin, Xu Zhang, Jie Ruan, Xiaojun WanACL 2024
