mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Lexical Perturbations Disrupt LLM Reasoning: An Empirical Study of Attention Diversion

arXiv 2608.22140 ↗First posted 22 Aug 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong reasoning performance, but their robustness to realistic lexical corruption remains poorly understood. We evaluate four open-weight instruction-tuned models and frontier models across four reasoning benchmarks under keyboard noise, character swaps, and filler insertion. Character-level perturbations substantially degrade accuracy, especially on multi-step reasoning tasks, while filler insertion has little effect. We trace this asymmetry to Attention Diversion: lexical corruption fragments subword tokenization, and the resulting fragments attract disproportionate attention mass, concentrated in middle and final transformer layers. Length-matched controls confirm that fragmentation, not prompt length, drives the loss. A factorial intervention then shows why the damage is hard to undo: fragmentation corrupts token content and attention allocation together, and the two are coupled. Restoring clean attention while the content remains corrupted is actively harmful, restoring content alone is insufficient, and only restoring both recovers a substantial share of the gap. This coupling explains why inference-time strategies, including chain-of-thought prompting, spell-checking, self-repair, and stronger repair models, fail to consistently recover performance: each addresses one channel at a time. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Jiaqian-Janelle/Attention-Diversion

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 14 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Aug 2026.

Builds on

14 of 30 references.

References · 14

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  3. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  4. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  5. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  6. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  7. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,371
  8. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  9. 2019PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural Languagecited by 2,883
  10. 2023Efficient Streaming Language Models with Attention Sinkscited by 2,186
  11. 2024Gemma 2: Improving Open Language Models at a Practical Sizecited by 1,998
  12. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
2 more
  1. 2018TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applicationscited by 381
  2. 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 306

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026From Early Encoding to Late Suppression: Interpreting LLMs on Character Counting Tasks
  2. 2025Attention Illuminates LLM Reasoning: The Preplan-and-Anchor Rhythm Enables Fine-Grained Policy Optimization
  3. 2026Spontaneous Context Restoration: How Language Models Recover from Corrupted Inputs
  4. 2025Exploring LLM Reasoning Through Controlled Prompt Variations
  5. 2026Fragile Thoughts: How Large Language Models Handle Chain-of-Thought Perturbations
  6. 2024Dissociation of Faithful and Unfaithful Reasoning in LLMs
  7. 2026Silent Failures in Quantized LLM Reasoning: A Taxonomy-Based Analysis of Hollow Convergence and Failure Mode Shifts
  8. 2025An Analysis for Reasoning Bias of Language Models with Small Initialization