arXiv:2604.01639cs.CL2026-04

大模型对语义不变的微小改动竟如此敏感,揭示了推理脆弱性的机制根源。

Fragile Reasoning: A Mechanistic Analysis of LLM Sensitivity to Meaning-Preserving Perturbations

  • 通过扰动名称和数字格式,发现模型答案翻转率高达28.8%-45.1%
  • 提出MPD诊断框架,发现失败在早期层就已出现且分层放大
  • 揭示三类失败模式,仅局部故障可通过修复恢复,多数难以挽救

大型语言模型在数学推理基准上表现优异,却对语义保持的表面扰动极为脆弱。我们系统评估了三个开源模型(Mistral-7B、Llama-3-8B、Qwen2.5-7B)在677个GSM8K问题及其通过名称替换和数字格式改写生成的语义等价变体上的表现。所有模型均出现显著的答案翻转率(28.8%-45.1%),其中数字改写比名称替换更具破坏性。为追踪故障机制,我们引入统一诊断流程MPD框架,结合对数透镜分析、激活修补、组件消融及新提出的级联放大指数(CAI)。CAI作为层间偏差放大的度量,在两个架构中优于首现分歧层(最高AUC 0.679)。对数透镜显示错误样本在更早层即偏离正确路径。激活修补揭示显著架构差异:Llama-3的失败可定位至特定层(43/60可修复),而Mistral与Qwen的失败呈广泛分布(分别仅3/60和0/60可修复)。基于此,提出局部化、分布式与纠缠三类故障分类,并通过定向修复实验验证:引导向量与层微调可恢复12.2%的局部失败(Llama-3),但仅7.2%(Qwen纠缠)和5.2%(Mistral分布式)。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Large language models demonstrate strong performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, yet remain surprisingly fragile to meaning-preserving surface perturbations. We systematically evaluate three open-weight LLMs, Mistral-7B, Llama-3-8B, and Qwen2.5-7B, on 677 GSM8K problems paired with semantically equivalent variants generated through name substitution and number format paraphrasing. All three models exhibit substantial answer-flip rates (28.8%-45.1%), with number paraphrasing consistently more disruptive than name swaps. To trace the mechanistic basis of these failures, we introduce the Mechanistic Perturbation Diagnostics (MPD) framework, combining logit lens analysis, activation patching, component ablation, and the Cascading Amplification Index (CAI) into a unified diagnostic pipeline. CAI, a novel metric quantifying layer-wise divergence amplification, outperforms first divergence layer as a failure predictor for two of three architectures (AUC up to 0.679). Logit lens reveals that flipped samples diverge from correct predictions at significantly earlier layers than stable samples. Activation patching reveals a stark architectural divide in failure localizability: Llama-3 failures are recoverable by patching at specific layers (43/60 samples), while Mistral and Qwen failures are broadly distributed (3/60 and 0/60). Based on these diagnostic signals, we propose a mechanistic failure taxonomy (localized, distributed, and entangled) and validate it through targeted repair experiments: steering vectors and layer fine-tuning recover 12.2% of localized failures (Llama-3) but only 7.2% of entangled (Qwen) and 5.2% of distributed (Mistral) failures.

大模型脆弱性机制分析数学推理故障诊断

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。