Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the stability of prompt rankings in large language model evaluations, revealing that minor variations in evaluation conditions can lead to significant shifts in the top-performing prompts. Through experiments with three open-weight LLMs and two benchmark tasks, the authors demonstrate that while rank correlations are generally moderate to high, the identity of the top prompt is often unreliable. To mitigate this issue, they propose a stability-aware selection strategy that incorporates performance variance, resulting in improved robustness in unstable scenarios without sacrificing competitiveness in stable conditions.
Prompt rankings can shift dramatically under minor variations, leading to unreliable selections that could misguide downstream applications.
Prompt-based interaction has become a dominant paradigm for using large language models (LLMs), where multiple candidate prompts are evaluated and the top-ranked one is selected for downstream use. This workflow implicitly assumes that prompt rankings are stable under minor variations in evaluation conditions. In this paper, we systematically study prompt ranking stability under common sources of variability, including random seeds and limited evaluation subsets. Across three open-weight LLMs and two benchmark tasks, we find that while overall rank correlations are often moderate to high, the identity of the top-performing prompt frequently changes, leading to unreliable selection decisions. To address this issue, we propose a simple stability-aware selection strategy based on a lower confidence bound, which accounts for both performance and variance. Our results show that this approach improves robustness in unstable settings while remaining competitive in more stable regimes. These findings highlight the importance of accounting for evaluation uncertainty in prompt selection and LLM benchmarking.
