A crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition is specified that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embeds the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability.
Abstract
Teams measuring whether large language models (LLMs) recommend a brand face a reproducibility problem: ask the same question twice and the answer moves. Practice resamples each prompt a few times (commonly five) and averages, treating within-prompt resampling as the source of the noise. But a measured brand score moves for at least four separable reasons: within-prompt resampling, prompt paraphrase, model identity, and query language. We specify a crossed random-effects (generalizability-theory) decomposition that partitions the total variance of a response-level brand outcome into these four sources, and embed the components in a decision-study allocation that returns how many repeats, paraphrases, models, and languages to buy for a target reliability. We apply it to a fully crossed corpus of 12,933 LLM responses on 20 Central and Eastern European brands, 8 languages, and 3 models (GPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Flash in parametric mode, Perplexity in grounded retrieval), with a stability subset of 1,435 cells resampled about five times. The outcome is per-response multilingual sentiment polarity. Query language is the largest systematic facet (26.5% of the variance of one response) against 1.5% for brand identity (ICC 0.0146), so a single AI answer carries almost no brand-discriminating signal. Once a cell term isolates pure resampling, resampling is 34.8% of variance and the brand-in-context interaction 29.6%; brand-by-language is 8.6% (a bilingual penalty) while brand-by-model and brand-by-prompt are near zero. Per unit of query budget, adding languages and models reduces relative-error variance far more than adding repeats: a repeat past the fifth reduces it by only 0.0003. Brand-ranking reliability stays low, near 0.01 for a single answer and about 0.36 at the full crossed design, so reliability is bought by spreading across languages and models, not by repeating one prompt.
A benchmark score comes from a single phrasing of each problem. That single phrasing is treated as if it stood for the whole space of ways the same problem could be asked, but it does not. We show that rephrasing a problem while keeping its meaning and answer fixed routinely flips a model's answer in both directions, so some failures become successes and some successes become failures. We call this drift. BenchDrift generates meaning-preserving variations of benchmark problems along four axes, namely linguistic, referential, pragmatic, and structural, and measures how often, and why, correctness flips under each. Across eight models and three benchmarks (GSM8K, MMLU, MATH-Hard), we observe that drift is large in both directions. Two findings stand out. First, phrasing sensitivity does not fade as models get better. Instead, it changes sign. Weak models gain more from rephrasing than they lose, while strong models lose far more than they gain. We find that the best models on a benchmark are therefore the ones whose scores depend most on the wording they happened to be given. Second, the models largely agree on which rephrasings cost the most correct answers even though they differ in how much they drift, so fragility belongs to the rephrasing and not to the model. Furthermore, rephrasing breaks answers a model was confident about, whether the problem is made shorter or longer. Code and Data: https://github.com/IBM/BenchDrift/tree/demo-ui
Shailja Thakur, Sungeun An, Chad DeLuca et al.· 0 citations
When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause --"Reply with JSON only"-- changes which answer it chooses, and structured output is how software consumes language models.
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful black-box systems, making it difficult to discern whether their answers reflect stable internal beliefs or superficial pattern matching. We identify cross-contextual consistency as an underutilized behavioral property of LLMs: a credible answer should remain stable when the same task is placed under topic-aligned, content-neutral contextual variation. Building on this intuition, we operationalize Cross-Contextual Consistency (C3) by comparing model generations under original and perturbed prompts. Across 26 models and six benchmarks spanning reasoning, factuality, and code generation, we find that answers with smaller cross-contextual shifts are more likely to be correct or factual. We demonstrate that C3 provides a complementary axis of evaluation and can serve as a benchmark usefulness diagnostic, identifying which portions of a benchmark remain informative even when aggregated scores are widely considered"saturate".
Sampling methods for large language models select candidate tokens based on logit statistics, implicitly assuming that high log-its indicate desirable outputs. We identify the Logit Conflation Problem , where a to-ken’s logit aggregates prompt-independent factors, including linguistic fluency and parametric associations, with prompt-relevance. However, only prompt-relevance determines instruction-following quality. We propose SEAL-Sampling ( S ignal E xtraction for A ctive Re L evance) to isolate this component through attention-weighted attribution. Our framework defines prompt-relevance as the causal effect of prompt content on token logits and establishes attention patterns as an efficient proxy. Experiments on LLaMA-3 demonstrate significant improvements over top-nσ , with gains of 1.8% on AlpacaEval 2.0 and 2.2% on IFEval. Furthermore, attribution scores correlate weakly with raw logits, confirming the extraction of an orthogonal signal. The method is training-free and introduces minimal latency, adding less than 12ms overhead per token.
Pinlong Zhao, Huijun Tang, Pengfei Jiao et al.· Annual Meeting of the Associ...· 0 citations
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.
Sadia Kamal, A. Patwary, Anthony Marchiafava et al.· 0 citations
An observability ladder is introduced that holds each completed run fixed and varies only what a reader inspects to judge whether the answer is correct: the response, a self-summary the model writes from the trace, the trace itself, and internal signals, each with and without the prompt.
A. Algaba, Francesca Carlon, Lynn Delcon et al.· 0 citations