Shared Lexical Task Representations Explain Behavioral Variability In LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2026.
Builds on
21 of 48 references.
References · 21
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
- 2022In-context Learning and Induction Headscited by 964
- 2023Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Modelscited by 528
- 2023CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-Xcited by 300
- 2025Activation Oracles: Training and Evaluating LLMs as General-Purpose Activation Explainerscited by 52
- 2024Summing Up the Facts: Additive Mechanisms Behind Factual Recall in LLMscited by 42
- 2024The broader spectrum of in-context learningcited by 35
- 2025Training Language Models to Explain Their Own Computationscited by 30
- 2025Belief Dynamics Reveal the Dual Nature of In-Context Learning and Activation Steeringcited by 29
9 more
- 2025The Dual-Route Model of Inductioncited by 24
- 2025The Geometry of Prompting: Unveiling Distinct Mechanisms of Task Adaptation in Language Modelscited by 18
- 2024Everything Everywhere All at Once: LLMs can In-Context Learn Multiple Tasks in Superpositioncited by 14
- 2025Do different prompting methods yield a common task representation in language models?cited by 11
- 2024The Heuristic Core: Understanding Subnetwork Generalization in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 10
- 2025Do Activation Verbalization Methods Convey Privileged Information?cited by 10
- 2025How Do Language Models Compose Functions?cited by 8
- 2025More or Less Wrong: A Benchmark for Directional Bias in LLM Comparative Reasoningcited by 7
- 2025Mechanism of Task-oriented Information Removal in In-context Learningcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.