CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 27, 2026

Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs

arXiv AI Archived Apr 27, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.22027v1 Announce Type: cross 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 pro

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Computation and Language [Submitted on 23 Apr 2026] Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs Zhuonan Yang, Jacob Xiaochen Li, Francisco Piedrahita Velez, Eric Todd, David Bau, Michael L. Littman, Stephen H. Bach, Ellie Pavlick 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. Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2604.22027 [cs.CL]   (or arXiv:2604.22027v1 [cs.CL] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.22027 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Zhuonan Yang [view email] [v1] Thu, 23 Apr 2026 19:43:29 UTC (5,275 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CL < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 27, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 27, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗