摘要
arXiv:2605.25981v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We document an empirical phenomenon in chain-of-thought and ReAct agents driven by ten large language models from seven architecture families: meaning-bearing perturbations (e.g., paraphrase, synonym) alter final answers more often than presentation perturbations (e.g., formatting, reordering) of comparable severity. Across 68 cells spanning GSM8K, MATH, and HotpotQA (1,530 originals and $\sim$11,150 variants), the inconsistency gap averages +19.69 pp after severity matching (paired $t=9.58$, $p<0.0001$), with 64/68 cells positive. The gap survives four severity-proxy audits and remains significant when excluding qwen models (+11.10 pp, $p<0.0001$). Several stress tests fail honestly: cluster-bootstrap significance disappears under stricter assumptions, tractability contrasts do not replicate, cross-architecture generator swaps break per-cell rankings, and a second LLM judge yields only moderate agreement ($\kappa=0.50$).