Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates how different linguistic constructions influence the stance of large language models (LLMs) by analyzing their responses to meaning-preserving and meaning-inverting rewrites of political statements. By employing a causal tracing approach, the authors demonstrate that stance instability occurs regardless of whether the rewrites maintain or alter the original meaning, with significant shifts localized in the mid-to-late decoder layers of the models. The findings reveal that specific activation patterns in these layers can effectively restore the original stance distribution, highlighting the nuanced interplay between linguistic realization and model behavior.
Stance shifts in LLMs can be systematically induced by linguistic constructions, revealing critical vulnerabilities in their decision-making processes.
Large language models (LLMs) are known to be sensitive to prompt and input formulations. However, existing studies have focused on lexical realization and largely ignored constructional choice. This paper studies whether linguistic construction can systematically shift LLM decisions and where these shifts can be causally localized inside the model. We use political stance judgment as a meaning-sensitive case study and extend an English political statements dataset, resulting in six controlled linguistic rewrite types that preserve or invert the meaning of a statement. Experiments on four open-weight models show that stance instability affect both meaning-preserving and meaning-inversing rewrites. Because output shifts reveal that rewrites affect stance, but not where in the model, we apply activation patching, where activations from the original statement are substituted into the forward pass for the rewritten statement and measure which components recover the original stance distribution. The results show that mid-to-late decoder layers, especially block outputs at the final prompt position, provide the strongest restoration signal.
