mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Revisiting Prompt Sensitivity in Large Language Models for Text Classification: The Role of Prompt Underspecification

arXiv 2602.04297 ↗First posted 4 Feb 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as zero-shot and few-shot classifiers, where task behaviour is largely controlled through prompting. A growing number of works have observed that LLMs are sensitive to prompt variations, with small changes leading to large changes in performance. However, in many cases, the investigation of sensitivity is performed using underspecified prompts that provide minimal task instructions and weakly constrain the model's output space. In this work, we argue that a significant portion of the observed prompt sensitivity can be attributed to prompt underspecification. We systematically study and compare the sensitivity of underspecified prompts and prompts that provide specific instructions. Utilising performance analysis, logit analysis, and linear probing, we find that underspecified prompts exhibit higher performance variance and lower logit values for relevant tokens, while instruction-prompts suffer less from such problems. However, linear probing analysis suggests that the effects of prompt underspecification have only a marginal impact on the internal LLM representations, instead emerging in the final layers. Overall, our findings highlight the need for more rigour when investigating and mitigating prompt sensitivity.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Feb 2026.

Builds on

19 of 28 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  3. 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,293
  4. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
  5. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
  6. 2019Quantifying the Carbon Emissions of Machine Learningcited by 516
  7. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
  8. 2024When Benchmarks are Targets: Revealing the Sensitivity of Large Language Model Leaderboardscited by 134
  9. 2024The Butterfly Effect of Altering Prompts: How Small Changes and Jailbreaks Affect Large Language Model Performancecited by 97
  10. 2023Batch Calibration: Rethinking Calibration for In-Context Learning and Prompt Engineeringcited by 91
  11. 2023Mitigating Label Biases for In-context Learningcited by 88
  12. 2024What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineeringcited by 88
7 more
  1. 2024Mind Your Format: Towards Consistent Evaluation of In-Context Learning Improvementscited by 82
  2. 2022Prompt Consistency for Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 66
  3. 2025Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answeringcited by 27
  4. 2024Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMscited by 24
  5. 2025DOVE: A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Predictions Dataset Towards Meaningful LLM Evaluationcited by 21
  6. 2023Zero-shot Approach to Overcome Perturbation Sensitivity of Promptscited by 11
  7. 2025Beyond the Next Token: Towards Prompt-Robust Zero-Shot Classification via Efficient Multi-Token Predictioncited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.