# The Invisible Lottery: How Subtle Cues Steer Algorithm Choice in LLM Code Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04057 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04057/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 20 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10601/) (2023)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04132/) (2024)
- [Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11324/) (2023)
- [The Instruction Hierarchy: Training LLMs to Prioritize Privileged Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13208/) (2024)
- [Asleep at the Keyboard? Assessing the Security of GitHub Copilot's Code Contributions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.09293/) (2021)
- [Improving Reproducibility in Machine Learning Research (A Report from the NeurIPS 2019 Reproducibility Program)](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.12206/) (2020)
- [code2vec: Learning Distributed Representations of Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09473/) (2018)
- [Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.15000/) (2022)
- [Reading Between the Lines: Modeling User Behavior and Costs in AI-Assisted Programming](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.14306/) (2022)
- [When "A Helpful Assistant" Is Not Really Helpful: Personas in System Prompts Do Not Improve Performances of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.10054/) (2023)
- [Prompting Techniques for Secure Code Generation: A Systematic Investigation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07064/) (2024)
- [LLMs Meet Library Evolution: Evaluating Deprecated API Usage in LLM-based Code Completion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.09834/) (2024)
- [Selective Prompt Anchoring for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.09121/) (2024)
- [CodeCrash: Exposing LLM Fragility to Misleading Natural Language in Code Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14119/) (2025)
- [How Diversely Can Language Models Solve Problems? Exploring the Algorithmic Diversity of Model-Generated Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00691/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [DivAlgo: A systematic evaluation of algorithmic diversity for code generation models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19157/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) now generate substantial production code, often for tasks with multiple valid algorithmic solutions. Incidental prompt cues, meaning contextual words or metadata outside the task specification, can steer which algorithm the model selects, even when all outputs pass the same tests. Prompt sensitivity is well studied as a tool to improve output quality. Here, output policy means algorithm choice under fixed correctness. We define algorithm steering as cue-induced shifts in algorithm-family distributions and run 46,535 controlled experiments across 11 tasks, 19 cue types (18 channels plus a memoization semantic-vs-surface ablation that preserves meaning while changing typography and punctuation), and 15 model configurations. We find large, systematic shifts in algorithm-family distributions (up to 100 pp), largely consistent with cue semantics, including in applied tasks such as rate limiting. Direct algorithm naming is the most reliable mitigation we tested. Accidental context therefore creates an "invisible lottery" over performance, security, and maintainability.