mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

When prompt perturbations break your A/B test: A valid statistical test for generative surveying

arXiv 2605.27463 ↗First posted 26 May 2026stat.ME cs.AI stat.APcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Generative surveying -- where collections of LLM-based personas provide feedback on messages -- has emerged as a cheap and scalable alternative to traditional market research. However, LLMs are sensitive to small variations in prompt design and conclusions drawn from generative surveys may depend on arbitrary phrasing choices. Controlling for this sensitivity requires including semantically equivalent perturbations in the analysis. In this paper, we show that standard hypothesis tests, including the sign test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, are invalid under a statistical model for generative surveying that includes realistic perturbation structure. We propose a permutation test that is valid under this model and formally characterize the conditions under which standard tests fail. Applying our framework to a simple generative surveying problem, we estimate relevant parameters, characterize the power of the permutation test under realistic conditions, and provide practical guidance on budget allocation across personas, perturbations, and replicates. Finally, we show that both the magnitude and direction of the estimated effect are sensitive to the choice of model, even within the same model family.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.

Builds on

13 of 32 references.

References · 13

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  3. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
  4. 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,135
  5. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
  6. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 773
  7. 2022Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samplescited by 752
  8. 2022Using Large Language Models to Simulate Multiple Humans and Replicate Human Subject Studiescited by 515
  9. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
  10. 2024MedFuzz: Exploring the Robustness of Large Language Models in Medical Question Answeringcited by 26
  11. 2023A Statistical Turing Test for Generative Modelscited by 8
  12. 2025Testing for LLM response differences: the case of a composite null consisting of semantically irrelevant query perturbationscited by 1
1 more
  1. 2026Black-box model classification under the discriminative factorizationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.