ProSA: Assessing and Understanding the Prompt Sensitivity of LLMs
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various tasks, but their performance is highly sensitive to the prompts utilized. This variability poses challenges for accurate assessment and user satisfaction. Current research frequently overlooks instance-level prompt variations and their implications on subjective evaluations. To address these shortcomings, we introduce ProSA, a framework designed to evaluate and comprehend prompt sensitivity in LLMs. ProSA incorporates a novel sensitivity metric, PromptSensiScore, and leverages decoding confidence to elucidate underlying mechanisms. Our extensive study, spanning multiple tasks, uncovers that prompt sensitivity fluctuates across datasets and models, with larger models exhibiting enhanced robustness. We observe that few-shot examples can alleviate this sensitivity issue, and subjective evaluations are also susceptible to prompt sensitivities, particularly in complex, reasoningoriented tasks. Furthermore, our findings indicate that higher model confidence correlates with increased prompt robustness. We believe this work will serve as a helpful tool in studying prompt sensitivity of LLMs. The project is released at: https://github.com/ open-compass/ProSA.
Introduction. In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have rapidly become the focus of the artificial intelligence field. By training on large-scale corpora, LLMs have shown impressive capabilities in multiple tasks (Zhao et al., 2023; Min et al., 2023). The input for LLMs, known as prompts, is crucial for their ability to complete a wide variety of tasks. The prompts for LLMs come in various forms. Even for the same requirement, different individuals’ varying expression habits can result in prompts of different styles. Figure 1 illustrates four The diversity of prompts elicits various responses from LLMs. Recent studies (Zhu et al., 2023; Pezeshkpour and Hruschka, 2024; Sclar et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2023) investigate model performance across different prompt templates and demonstrate that LLMs are highly sensitive to the nuances of prompts. Even minor alterations to prompts can lead to substantial declines in model performance. This sensitivity to prompts poses a challenge for researchers aiming to precisely evaluate the models’ capabilities.
Discussion / Conclusion. In summary, we propose an instance-level prompt sensitivity metric, PSS, and conduct a comprehensive analysis on both objective and subjective evaluation. Additionally, we explore the relationship between prompt sensitivity and model confidence. We believe our work can provide guidance for further sensitivity analysis and building robust LLMs.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Why do language models accommodate false information despite possessing correct knowledge? Why do independent language models converge on similar outputs? Why do LLMs excel at generating but assessing content poorly? Can readers reliably distinguish AI-generated text from human writing? Can AI-generated text be reliably distinguished from human writing? Can behavioral steering through simulation guide LLM improvements without costly retraining?- How do LLM user simulators track and maintain consistent goal states across multi-turn interactions?
- Can controllable latent variables in simulators ground them to realistic conversation?
- Why do language models successfully simulate political perspectives and social personas?
- Why do LLM regenerations produce meaningfully different personalities from the same prompt?
- What does the 20-questions test reveal about LLM character consistency?
- Can you separate grammatical competence from rhetorical commitment in language systems?
- What are Gricean maxims and why do language models violate them?
- Can language models learn to form ad-hoc conventions through training?
- Why do LLMs fabricate continuity when users shift conversational frames?
- Why does dialogue-shaped text fail to produce dialogue-like operations in practice?