How Perturbations Propagate: A Multi-Level Analysis of Robustness in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language models encounter typos, corrupted text, altered words, and disrupted token order, yet robustness is usually evaluated only through output behavior. We study how six naturalistic and synthetic input perturbations propagate through decoder-only language models at three levels: output behavior, hidden-state geometry, and attention-head function. We evaluate behavioral effects across four GPT-2 and two Qwen2.5 checkpoints, analyze layerwise geometry using centered kernel alignment and intrinsic dimension, and examine attention-head responses in GPT-2. Perturbation types produce distinguishable metric profiles that are not fully captured by output measures and are only partly consistent across the tested checkpoints. Copying scores show the strongest pooled associations with activation-patching recovery under token substitution and shuffling, although these associations do not isolate copying-specific effects. Gradient-guided HotFlip perturbations also cause stronger behavioral and representational disruption than rate-matched random token substitutions in GPT-2; their behavioral effects are consistent across all six tested checkpoints. Our results show that robustness claims based on a single behavioral or representational metric can be misleading, and motivate multi-level evaluation of how perturbations alter language-model computation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 20 references.
References · 15
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2016Pointer Sentinel Mixture Modelscited by 2,992
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,609
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,130
- 2019Universal Adversarial Triggers for Attacking and Analyzing NLPcited by 709
- 2019Is BERT Really Robust? A Strong Baseline for Natural Language Attack on Text Classification and Entailmentcited by 663
- 2020Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 658
- 2017Synthetic and Natural Noise Both Break Neural Machine Translationcited by 304
- 2018Estimating the intrinsic dimension of datasets by a minimal neighborhood informationcited by 246
- 2024How to use and interpret activation patchingcited by 191
- 2019Combating Adversarial Misspellings with Robust Word Recognitioncited by 162
Built on by
Not cited yet.