Prompt Framing Distorts Count-Based Evaluation of LLM Error Detection: Evidence from Numeric Anchoring

A growing body of work evaluates LLMs on structured proofreading and fact-checking tasks. Fang et al. (2023) report competitive grammatical-error-correction results for ChatGPT in some settings, together with systematic over-correction. BEA-2019 (Bryant et al., 2019), CoNLL-2014 (Ng et al., 2014), and the broader GEC literature (Bryant et al., 2023) also show why count agreement alone is an incomplete measure of correction quality. In scientific reviewing, pilot studies find that targeted error-finding prompts can work better than holistic review prompts (Liu and Shah, 2023); related work studies AI-assisted peer review and review corpora (Checco et al., 2021; Dycke et al., 2023).

This sensitivity to how the error-finding request is framed raises a further question: what happens when the prompt supplies a specific expected count?

LLM outputs vary with prompt wording, instruction order, and demonstration selection (Zhao et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2022; Min et al., 2022). Sycophancy is especially relevant here: models may agree with a user’s stated belief even when it is false (Perez et al., 2023; Sharma et al., 2024). Perez et al. (2023) observe this behavior across several knowledge domains, indicating that a prompt can override information available to the model. Positional and social biases also affect LLM-as-judge assessments (Ye et al., 2025). We study a narrower case in which the prompt supplies a number and the model estimates an error count.

The anchoring effect is well established in cognitive psychology (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). Under the anchoring-and-adjustment account, people begin with a salient reference value and stop adjusting before reaching an independent estimate (Epley and Gilovich, 2006). LLM studies have reported related effects in reasoning, forecasting, and numerical-judgment tasks (Macmillan-Scott and Musolesi, 2024; Nguyen, 2024; Huang et al., 2025; Lou and Sun, 2026); recent evidence further relates susceptibility to model confidence and post-training (Owusu and Feldman, 2026). Our setting differs in one important respect: the supplied number is also the target used by the count metric. We therefore focus on prompt-induced count movement and score distortion rather than the internal mechanism.

We build ErrorBench from the CoNLL-2014 Shared Task data (Ng et al., 2014). Consecutive sentences are grouped into non-overlapping four-sentence windows, and passage counts and gold edits come from Annotator 0. The initial stratified sample contained 143 windows with 3–7 errors. A post-collection integrity audit aligned the ordered M2 sentences to the 50 <DOC> blocks in the official SGML source and found that 20 sampled windows crossed an essay boundary. We excluded those windows without inspecting model outputs, leaving 123 passages: 25, 28, 23, 26, and 21 in the 3–7 error buckets. The original sample and exclusion list remain in the release for auditability.

Each passage stores raw text, its Annotator-0 count, M2 categories, and token-indexed annotations. The initial corrected-text subset contained 100 passages; the same audit excluded 17 boundary-crossing windows, leaving 83. ERRANT 3.0.0 extracts edits from model corrections (Bryant et al., 2017). We then apply exact tuple matching against Annotator 0 and a two-reference sensitivity rule using Annotators 0 and 1 (Section 4.6).

We design five prompt conditions as our primary independent variable, shown in Table 1. All conditions share a fixed system prompt instructing the model to respond using a structured format (“ERROR N: [description]” followed by “TOTAL ERRORS FOUND: N”) so that outputs can be parsed automatically. Temperature is fixed at 0 to reduce sampling variation; this does not make remote model inference deterministic.

For the Misleading conditions, we set $M=N+2$ (Mislead-Over) and $M=\max(1,N-2)$ (Mislead-Under), where $N$ is the true error count. The supplied value therefore differs from the truth by exactly 2 in both directions.

We evaluate GPT-4o and GPT-5.4 (OpenAI, 2024, 2026), Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Anthropic, 2025, 2026), and Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (Google DeepMind, 2025; Google, 2026). The labels follow the requested model identifiers at an OpenAI-compatible proxy; cross-family comparisons are descriptive. The initial collection planned $143\times 6\times 5=4{,}290$ cells. All post-audit main analyses use the complete $123\times 6\times 5=3{,}690$ grid and a keep-last-success rule for retries. The main prompt uses an 800-token output limit; the corrected-text replication uses 1,400 tokens.

ErrorBench is a controlled stress test. For passage $i$, let $\hat{N}_{i}$ be the reported count and $N_{i}$ the reference count. Count Bias is $\mathrm{CB}_{i}=\hat{N}_{i}-N_{i}$. For condition $c$, $\mathrm{ASI}_{i}(c)=|\mathrm{CB}_{i}(c)-\mathrm{CB}_{i}(\mathrm{Blind})|/N_{i}$; we report its mean and SD over parseable condition–Blind pairs. We call this descriptive measure the Anchoring Sensitivity Index (ASI); the name refers to the prompt manipulation and does not identify an internal mechanism. Count-F1 uses count overlap without span matching: $\mathrm{TP}_{i}=\min(\hat{N}_{i},N_{i})$, $\mathrm{FP}_{i}=\max(0,\hat{N}_{i}-N_{i})$, and $\mathrm{FN}_{i}=\max(0,N_{i}-\hat{N}_{i})$. We average passage-level Count-F1. An unparseable count receives Count-F1 0; CB and paired count analyses use parseable pairs and report their effective sample size $n$. We also compare Mislead-Over directly with Mislead-Under. Because all retained passages have $N_{i}\geq 3$, these prompts differ by exactly four errors.

The main span diagnostic is description-derived and M2-style; it is not the official M2 scorer. We parse quoted source/correction fragments from each error description, localize them in the passage, and form $(\mathrm{sentence},\mathrm{start},\mathrm{end},\mathrm{correction})$ tuples. Unlocalized descriptions are false positives in the primary analysis. Repository-local strict, detection, and overlap matching produce corpus micro $F_{0.5}$ scores; Appendix B.2 gives definitions and a sensitivity analysis. The corrected-text replication avoids description parsing: ERRANT extracts predicted and reference edits, followed by our documented exact-matching and two-reference selection rules. Missing corrected text is scored as an empty prediction. Because Count-F1 and edit $F_{0.5}$ are not commensurate scales, inference focuses on their changes under the same prompt contrast, not only on their raw difference.

For reproducibility, the appendix reports the prompts, model identifiers, decoding settings, and scoring variants needed to audit the experiment. The full code, prompts, and raw model outputs will be released upon publication in an anonymized research repository; all figures are generated from the passage-level model-output records using the same analysis scripts described in the appendix.

Table 2 reports Count Bias and Count-F1. GPT-5.4 follows the Mislead-Over count with zero variance (CB $=+2$), while Claude H.4.5 is closest to the true count in the Anchored condition (CB $=-0.016$, SD $=0.180$). Near-perfect Anchored Count-F1 is partly built into the prompt. Blind behavior differs sharply: GPT-5.4 over-reports by 7.3 errors on average, Claude S.4.6 by 2.9, and Claude H.4.5 by 0.2. The two Gemini systems instead undercount across conditions. This is lower count responsiveness in this protocol, not evidence of greater general robustness.

Mislead-Over and Mislead-Under differ only in the supplied count, by four errors. Their paired contrast therefore avoids using the true-count condition as the sole evidence of a count-cue response. The mean reported-count shift is 3.740 for GPT-4o, 3.285 for GPT-5.4, 3.610 for Claude H.4.5, and 3.537 for Claude S.4.6 (Figure 3). These values are 82–94% of the prompt difference. The shifts for Gemini 2.5 and Gemini 3.1 are 0.211 and 0.144. All six paired shifts differ from zero after BH correction over these six tests ($q<.01$), although the Gemini effect sizes are small. The high count is repeated exactly in 93–100% of GPT/Claude outputs and 0% of Gemini outputs.

Table 3 relates each prompted condition to Blind. GPT-5.4 has the largest value: Mislead-Under ASI $=1.928$. Claude S.4.6 reaches 1.073, compared with 0.751 for GPT-4o and 0.456 for Claude H.4.5. Gemini 2.5 remains at or below 0.187 and Gemini 3.1 at or below 0.120. Because low ASI co-occurs with undercounting, it is not a clean estimate of resistance to count cues.

We compare each condition with Blind using paired passage-level t-tests and one Benjamini–Hochberg correction over the 24 tests. Mislead-Under is significant for every model ($q\leq.0033$). Mislead-Over is significant for the four GPT/Claude systems ($q\leq.0043$), but not for Gemini 2.5 or 3.1 ($q=.057$ and $.131$). The true-count Anchored contrast is significant for GPT-4o, GPT-5.4, and Claude S.4.6, but not Claude H.4.5 or either Gemini model. Informed differs from Blind only for GPT-5.4 ($\Delta$CB $=+0.618$, $q=.012$) and Claude H.4.5 ($+0.553$, $q<10^{-5}$).

Paired effect sizes give the scale of these shifts. For GPT-5.4, $d_{z}$ is $-2.54$ for Mislead-Under, $-2.32$ for Anchored, and $-1.70$ for Mislead-Over. Mislead-Under is also large for GPT-4o ($-1.34$), Claude H.4.5 ($-1.05$), and Claude S.4.6 ($-1.21$). The Gemini values are smaller ($|d_{z}|\leq 0.35$ for Gemini 2.5 and $\leq 0.30$ for Gemini 3.1). Appendix B.1 reports all paired effects and effective sample sizes.

Table 4 compares Count-F1 with the description-derived M2-style overlap score. The raw gap is not a scale-free effect because the metrics have different matching rules. The within-metric change is more informative: averaged over models, Blind$\to$Anchored raises Count-F1 by 0.163 and overlap $F_{0.5}$ by 0.059. For GPT-5.4, Count-F1 changes from 0.582 to 0.988 while overlap $F_{0.5}$ stays near 0.20. For Claude H.4.5 the changes are $0.858\to 0.999$ and $0.434\to 0.461$. Under strict matching, the largest Anchored count–edit gap is 0.954 (Appendix B.2).

The 83-passage replication asks for a full corrected passage, uses ERRANT to extract edits, and scores exact edit tuples against both CoNLL annotators. Our two-reference sensitivity rule selects the higher-$F_{0.5}$ reference separately for each sentence; this is not the official M2 max-match scorer. Every model–condition cell contains all 83 passages. One missing call and any missing corrected-text blocks are empty predictions.

Across models, Blind$\to$Anchored raises corpus Count-F1 by 0.218 on average and two-reference edit $F_{0.5}$ by 0.042. In a paired passage bootstrap (1,000 draws, seed 42), the difference between these metric changes is positive at the 95% level for GPT-4o, GPT-5.4, both Claude systems, and Gemini 2.5 (Figure 5). Gemini 3.1 has a positive point estimate but its interval crosses zero. The bootstrap treats the missing call and unparseable counts as failures. Appendix B.3 gives the model-level bootstrap contrasts and full Path-B condition scores.

Case A gives the clearest qualitative failure. On conll_0238 ($N=4$), GPT-4o reports only the valid theirselves$\to$themselves correction under Blind. Under Mislead-Over ($M=6$), it repeats that correction and adds five unsupported claims: four nonexistent spaces before punctuation and an unnecessary article before depression. It reaches the supplied count by inventing errors rather than recovering the other three gold edits. Appendix A.4 gives the passage and verbatim output, together with two contrasting cases. Under a low count, Claude H.4.5 drops from 11 reported errors to two on conll_0160 ($N=4$); Gemini 2.5, by contrast, still reports two errors when given a high count of five on conll_0201 ($N=3$).

The results suggest four safeguards for LLM proofreading and document review. Use blind prompts by default: do not disclose an expected error count unless the evaluation is specifically testing count-cue sensitivity. Treat count metrics as auxiliary: Count-F1 and exact-count accuracy measure coarse calibration, not localization. Report span-aware metrics: M2, ERRANT, or an equivalent localization score should accompany count results. Monitor exact count matching: deployed systems should track how often model outputs reproduce counts supplied by users, templates, or upstream tools.