Paraphrase-Induced Output-Mode Collapse: When LLMs Break Character Under Semantically Equivalent Inputs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
When the substantive content of a request is rewritten, do large language models still answer in the format the original task asked for? We find that they often do not, even at temperature zero. On a 150-query evaluation over five compact 2025-era LLMs and four task types, we observe a systematic failure mode we call prompt-variant output-mode collapse: when a closed-form prompt asks for a bare label or a single choice token, content-preserving prompt variants can push the model into conversational prose, the requested format dissolves, and exact-match evaluation pipelines silently misjudge the result. To make this measurable, we release PARACONSIST, a 900-prompt benchmark of 150 base queries with five lexical, syntactic, and semantic-expansion prompt variants each, and a Semantic Consistency Score that decomposes prompt-variant robustness into answer consistency, sentence-BERT semantic similarity, and length stability. Under a whole-word answer-set match, only ~22% of closed-form variant responses preserve the ground-truth label inside their output, while ~78% drift away from the answer space entirely. In our pool, the dominant predictor of collapse is task structure rather than model identity, with model differentiation jointly carried by answer consistency and length stability. Robustness audits should therefore track response-mode preservation as a first-class reliability target alongside answer accuracy.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 May 2026.
Builds on
26 of 31 references.
References · 26
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,326
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 3,104
- 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,330
- 2023Jailbroken: How Does LLM Safety Training Fail?cited by 1,651
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 1,006
14 more
- 2017SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluationcited by 1,001
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
- 2022Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Modelscited by 832
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2021Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Modelscited by 364
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
- 2020Evaluation of Text Generation: A Surveycited by 277
- 2024What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineeringcited by 90
- 2022PromptBERT: Improving BERT Sentence Embeddings with Promptscited by 75
- 2024POSIX: A Prompt Sensitivity Index For Large Language Modelscited by 59
- 2023How Robust is GPT-3.5 to Predecessors? A Comprehensive Study on Language Understanding Taskscited by 58
- 2016Neural Paraphrase Generation with Stacked Residual LSTM Networkscited by 52
- 2022Measuring Reliability of Large Language Models through Semantic Consistencycited by 38
- 2025PiCo: Jailbreaking Multimodal Large Language Models via Pictorial Code Contextualizationcited by 8
Built on by
Not cited yet.