Evaluating and Explaining Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs Using Interactions
Ruiyang Qin, Qingzhuo Wang, Tian Wang, Zhihua Wei, Wen Shen
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).
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 69b171eb-a9e2-44f2-970a-14de73449426Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on9
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language ModelsBowen Cao, Deng Cai, Zhisong Zhang, Yuexian Zou et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 65 citations
- Does a Neural Network Really Encode Symbolic Concepts?Mingjie Li, Quanshi ZhangICML 2023 · 35 citations
- Explaining Generalization Power of a DNN Using Interactive ConceptsHuilin Zhou, Hao Zhang, Huiqi Deng, Dongrui Liu et al.AAAI 2024 · 33 citations
- ProxySPEX: Inference-Efficient Interpretability via Sparse Feature Interactions in LLMsLandon Butler, Abhineet Agarwal, Justin Singh Kang, Yigit Efe Erginbas et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 19 citations
Related papers
- Understanding the Prompt SensitivityYang Liu, Chenhui ChuACL 2026 · 192 citations
- 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
- Evaluating the Zero-shot Robustness of Instruction-tuned Language ModelsJiuding Sun, Chantal Shaib, Byron C. WallaceICLR 2024 · 75 citations
- Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMsZhuonan Yang, Jacob Xiaochen Li, Francisco Velez, Eric Todd et al.ICML 2026
- PrExMe! Large Scale Prompt Exploration of Open Source LLMs for Machine Translation and Summarization EvaluationChristoph Leiter, Steffen EgerEMNLP 2024 · 5 citations
