@inproceedings{kostic-etal-2026-meaning,
title = "Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in {LLM} Evaluation",
author = "Kosti{\'c}, Bogdan and
Fallon, Conor and
Risch, Julian and
Loeser, Alexander",
editor = "Piperidis, Stelios and
Bel, N{\'u}ria and
van den Heuvel, Henk and
Ide, Nancy and
Krek, Simon and
Toral, Antonio",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference",
month = may,
year = "2026",
address = "Palma de Mallorca, Spain",
publisher = "ELRA Language Resource Association",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.363/",
doi = "10.63317/297j5gohq2ip",
pages = "4626--4637",
abstract = "The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established standardized evaluation benchmarks as the primary instrument for model comparison. Yet, their reliability is increasingly questioned due to sensitivity to shallow variations in input prompts. This paper examines how controlled, truth-conditionally equivalent lexical and syntactic perturbations affect the absolute performance and relative ranking of 23 contemporary LLMs across three benchmarks: MMLU, SQuAD, and AMEGA. We employ two linguistically principled pipelines to generate meaning-preserving variations: one performing synonym substitution for lexical changes, and another using dependency parsing to determine applicable syntactic transformations. Results show that lexical perturbations consistently induce substantial, statistically significant performance degradation across nearly all models and tasks, while syntactic perturbations have more heterogeneous effects, occasionally improving results. Both perturbation types destabilize model leaderboards on complex tasks. Furthermore, model robustness did not consistently scale with model size, revealing strong task dependence. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs rely more on surface-level lexical patterns than on abstract linguistic competence, underscoring the need for robustness testing as a standard component of LLM evaluation."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="kostic-etal-2026-meaning">
<titleInfo>
<title>Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Bogdan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Kostić</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Conor</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Fallon</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Julian</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Risch</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Alexander</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Loeser</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stelios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Piperidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Núria</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Henk</namePart>
<namePart type="family">van den Heuvel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nancy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ide</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Krek</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Antonio</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Toral</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>ELRA Language Resource Association</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Palma de Mallorca, Spain</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established standardized evaluation benchmarks as the primary instrument for model comparison. Yet, their reliability is increasingly questioned due to sensitivity to shallow variations in input prompts. This paper examines how controlled, truth-conditionally equivalent lexical and syntactic perturbations affect the absolute performance and relative ranking of 23 contemporary LLMs across three benchmarks: MMLU, SQuAD, and AMEGA. We employ two linguistically principled pipelines to generate meaning-preserving variations: one performing synonym substitution for lexical changes, and another using dependency parsing to determine applicable syntactic transformations. Results show that lexical perturbations consistently induce substantial, statistically significant performance degradation across nearly all models and tasks, while syntactic perturbations have more heterogeneous effects, occasionally improving results. Both perturbation types destabilize model leaderboards on complex tasks. Furthermore, model robustness did not consistently scale with model size, revealing strong task dependence. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs rely more on surface-level lexical patterns than on abstract linguistic competence, underscoring the need for robustness testing as a standard component of LLM evaluation.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">kostic-etal-2026-meaning</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.63317/297j5gohq2ip</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.363/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-05</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>4626</start>
<end>4637</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation
%A Kostić, Bogdan
%A Fallon, Conor
%A Risch, Julian
%A Loeser, Alexander
%Y Piperidis, Stelios
%Y Bel, Núria
%Y van den Heuvel, Henk
%Y Ide, Nancy
%Y Krek, Simon
%Y Toral, Antonio
%S Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
%D 2026
%8 May
%I ELRA Language Resource Association
%C Palma de Mallorca, Spain
%F kostic-etal-2026-meaning
%X The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has established standardized evaluation benchmarks as the primary instrument for model comparison. Yet, their reliability is increasingly questioned due to sensitivity to shallow variations in input prompts. This paper examines how controlled, truth-conditionally equivalent lexical and syntactic perturbations affect the absolute performance and relative ranking of 23 contemporary LLMs across three benchmarks: MMLU, SQuAD, and AMEGA. We employ two linguistically principled pipelines to generate meaning-preserving variations: one performing synonym substitution for lexical changes, and another using dependency parsing to determine applicable syntactic transformations. Results show that lexical perturbations consistently induce substantial, statistically significant performance degradation across nearly all models and tasks, while syntactic perturbations have more heterogeneous effects, occasionally improving results. Both perturbation types destabilize model leaderboards on complex tasks. Furthermore, model robustness did not consistently scale with model size, revealing strong task dependence. Overall, the findings suggest that LLMs rely more on surface-level lexical patterns than on abstract linguistic competence, underscoring the need for robustness testing as a standard component of LLM evaluation.
%R 10.63317/297j5gohq2ip
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.363/
%U https://doi.org/10.63317/297j5gohq2ip
%P 4626-4637
Markdown (Informal)
[Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation](https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.363/) (Kostić et al., LREC 2026)
ACL