Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.08254

Your Prompt Is Not the Only Prompt: How Much Do LLMs Weight Structured-Output Schema Descriptions?

Sin-Ying Lin
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Structured output, where an LLM populates a predefined JSON schema, has become a default mechanism for data labeling and information extraction, but it also introduces a second instruction channel through schema descriptions. We tested whether classification-label definitions are better placed in the system prompt, user prompt, or schema description using a single-field classification task with nonce labels across ten model configurations from two vendors. Schema descriptions did not consistently outperform prompt-based placement; for GPT-4.1 and GPT-5.4 without reasoning, schema placement underperformed system prompts by 11-13 percentage points. Yet schemas are not inert metadata: when prompts and schemas conflicted, incorrect schema instructions caused accuracy drops of 5-45 points, with Claude Haiku 4.5 falling from 52.5% to 7%, indicating that schema instructions can override prompt instructions, and GPT-5.5 falling from 100% to 73%. Further, adding a required intermediate reasoning field before the label field improved schema-only accuracy by 15-24 points when headroom existed, exceeding system-prompt-only performance in every case tested. The effect held even for Claude Sonnet 4.6 at medium reasoning, where extended thinking alone did not produce a comparable gain. This suggests that schema design can affect how effectively models use information encoded in field descriptions. Overall, these results indicate that schema influence is model-dependent. In practice, the system prompt remains a safe default for definitions, but the bigger discipline is maintaining a single source of truth and preventing prompt/schema drift. More importantly, schema design itself may be a stronger lever than instruction placement. Practitioners should treat prompts and schemas as a unified instruction surface and empirically validate both placement and field design for their target model.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sin-Ying Lin. 2026-08-08. Your Prompt Is Not the Only Prompt: How Much Do LLMs Weight Structured-Output Schema Descriptions?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08254

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗