Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the robustness of large language models (LLMs) to prompt variations by comparing responses to objective questions with fixed answers against subjective questions that solicit opinions or values. The authors evaluated four instruction-tuned model families across three objective datasets and three subjective datasets, employing various prompt modifications to assess response consistency. Findings reveal that prompt robustness is significantly influenced by the type of question, the nature of prompt changes, and the specific model used, highlighting the fragility of interpreting model outputs as indicators of underlying beliefs or values.
Prompt robustness varies dramatically between objective and subjective questions, revealing critical vulnerabilities in how we interpret LLM responses.
Survey-style evaluations of large language models often treat a prompted response as a measure of a model's values or beliefs. This assumption is particularly fragile when responses are read as evidence of political values, social attitudes, or beliefs. We ask whether prompt robustness differs between objective questions with fixed answers and subjective questions that ask for opinions or values. We evaluate four instruction-tuned model families on three objective datasets (MMLU, ARC, and CulturalBench) and three subjective datasets (Political Compass Test, ValueBench, and World Values Survey). For each question/statement, we apply multiple types of prompt changes, such as variations in wording, framing, and format, and measure whether the model gives the same answer across variants. Using a binomial generalized estimating equation, we find significant effects of model, dataset, prompt category, and their interactions. The dataset type effect is also significant, and the interaction between dataset type and prompt category is large. These results show that prompt robustness depends on the question type, the prompt change, and the model.
