Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs

πŸ“… 2026-04-23
πŸ“ˆ Citations: 0
✨ Influential: 0
πŸ“„ PDF

career value

205K/year
πŸ€– AI Summary
This study addresses the instability of large language models (LLMs) across different prompting styles, a phenomenon whose underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. By systematically comparing instruction-based and exemplar-based prompts through attention head analysis, representational probing, and behavioral experiments, the work identifies for the first time a shared β€œlexical task attention head” that operates consistently across prompting paradigms. The activation strength of this attention head strongly correlates with model performance and reliably triggers task-relevant answer generation. Furthermore, the research reveals that competition among internal task representations is a key driver of prompt sensitivity. These findings offer an interpretable framework for understanding LLM internal dynamics and suggest novel directions for enhancing prompt robustness.

Technology Category

Application Category

πŸ“ Abstract
One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.
Problem

Research questions and friction points this paper is trying to address.

prompt sensitivity
behavioral variability
large language models
task representation
lexical task heads
Innovation

Methods, ideas, or system contributions that make the work stand out.

lexical task heads
prompt sensitivity
attention mechanisms
task representation
in-context learning
πŸ”Ž Similar Papers
No similar papers found.