Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

How Susceptible are LLMs to Influence in Prompts?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.11865 v1 pith:HRBKANS7 submitted 2024-08-17 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords llmsmodelsmodelexplanationinputwhenadditionalanother
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to prompts, including additional context provided therein. As LLMs grow in capability, understanding their prompt-sensitivity becomes increasingly crucial for ensuring reliable and robust performance, particularly since evaluating these models becomes more challenging. In this work, we investigate how current models (Llama, Mixtral, Falcon) respond when presented with additional input from another model, mimicking a scenario where a more capable model -- or a system with access to more external information -- provides supplementary information to the target model. Across a diverse spectrum of question-answering tasks, we study how an LLM's response to multiple-choice questions changes when the prompt includes a prediction and explanation from another model. Specifically, we explore the influence of the presence of an explanation, the stated authoritativeness of the source, and the stated confidence of the supplementary input. Our findings reveal that models are strongly influenced, and when explanations are provided they are swayed irrespective of the quality of the explanation. The models are more likely to be swayed if the input is presented as being authoritative or confident, but the effect is small in size. This study underscores the significant prompt-sensitivity of LLMs and highlights the potential risks of incorporating outputs from external sources without thorough scrutiny and further validation. As LLMs continue to advance, understanding and mitigating such sensitivities will be crucial for their reliable and trustworthy deployment.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. ChiKhaPo: A Large-Scale Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating Lexical Comprehension and Generation in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    ChiKhaPo is an 8-subtask benchmark that measures word-level comprehension and generation in 2,700+ languages and shows state-of-the-art models perform poorly on low-resource languages.

  2. Comparing Moral Values in Western English-speaking societies and LLMs with Word Associations

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using word associations and graph-based moral propagation, Llama-3.1-8B is found to roughly match English speakers on positive moral concepts but to be more abstract and less emotionally grounded on negative ones.

  3. CodeEvolve: an open source evolutionary coding agent for algorithmic discovery and optimization

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An open-source LLM-evolution framework matches or narrowly beats reported AlphaEvolve scores on 5 of 9 benchmarks, with an open-weight backbone at roughly an order of magnitude lower API cost, though the SOTA margins ...

  4. Innocence in the Crossfire: Roles of Skip Connections in Jailbreaking Visual Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper reports higher harmful-output rates in three open-source VLMs from detailed image descriptions, in-context examples, and positive openings, and from a skip connection between internal layers, with memes riva...

  5. System Prompt Extraction Attacks and Defenses in Large Language Models

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A benchmarking study shows that chain-of-thought, few-shot, and modified sandwich queries can recover LLM system prompts with high similarity-based success, and output filtering is the most reliable tested defense.

Pith tools