Prompt Design Matters for Computational Social Science Tasks but in Unpredictable Ways

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11980v1
• Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 18:01:43 GMT
• Title: Prompt Design Matters for Computational Social Science Tasks but in Unpredictable Ways
• Authors: Shubham Atreja, Joshua Ashkinaze, Lingyao Li, Julia Mendelsohn, Libby Hemphill,
• Abstract summary: We test how prompt design impacts the compliance and accuracy of social science annotations. Our results show that LLM compliance and accuracy are highly prompt-dependent. This work serves as both a warning and practical guide for researchers and practitioners.
• Score: 3.779027297957693
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Manually annotating data for computational social science tasks can be costly, time-consuming, and emotionally draining. While recent work suggests that LLMs can perform such annotation tasks in zero-shot settings, little is known about how prompt design impacts LLMs' compliance and accuracy. We conduct a large-scale multi-prompt experiment to test how model selection (ChatGPT, PaLM2, and Falcon7b) and prompt design features (definition inclusion, output type, explanation, and prompt length) impact the compliance and accuracy of LLM-generated annotations on four CSS tasks (toxicity, sentiment, rumor stance, and news frames). Our results show that LLM compliance and accuracy are highly prompt-dependent. For instance, prompting for numerical scores instead of labels reduces all LLMs' compliance and accuracy. The overall best prompting setup is task-dependent, and minor prompt changes can cause large changes in the distribution of generated labels. By showing that prompt design significantly impacts the quality and distribution of LLM-generated annotations, this work serves as both a warning and practical guide for researchers and practitioners.

Related papers

• Can We Count on LLMs? The Fixed-Effect Fallacy and Claims of GPT-4 Capabilities [8.1022073999821]
  We present measurements of GPT-4 performance on several deterministic tasks. We find that seemingly trivial modifications in the task-prompt or input population can yield differences far larger than can be explained by sampling effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T21:48:33Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineering [8.019873464066308]
  We introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency. sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:59:24Z)
• Are you still on track!? Catching LLM Task Drift with Activations [55.75645403965326]
  Task drift allows attackers to exfiltrate data or influence the LLM's output for other users. We show that a simple linear classifier can detect drift with near-perfect ROC AUC on an out-of-distribution test set. We observe that this approach generalizes surprisingly well to unseen task domains, such as prompt injections, jailbreaks, and malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-02T16:53:21Z)
• LLMs for Targeted Sentiment in News Headlines: Exploring the Descriptive-Prescriptive Dilemma [0.0]
  This paper compares the accuracy of state-of-the-art LLMs and fine-tuned encoder models for targeted sentiment analysis of news headlines. We analyze how performance is affected by prompt prescriptiveness, ranging from plain zero-shot to elaborate few-shot prompts. We find that LLMs outperform fine-tuned encoders on descriptive datasets, while calibration and F1-score generally improve with increased prescriptiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T10:10:34Z)
• Prompt Highlighter: Interactive Control for Multi-Modal LLMs [50.830448437285355]
  This study targets a critical aspect of multi-modal LLMs' (LLMs&VLMs) inference: explicit controllable text generation. We introduce a novel inference method, Prompt Highlighter, which enables users to highlight specific prompt spans to interactively control the focus during generation. We find that, during inference, guiding the models with highlighted tokens through the attention weights leads to more desired outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-07T13:53:29Z)
• Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting [68.19544657508509]
  Large language models (LLMs) are adopted as a fundamental component of language technologies. We find that several widely used open-source LLMs are extremely sensitive to subtle changes in prompt format in few-shot settings. We propose an algorithm that rapidly evaluates a sampled set of plausible prompt formats for a given task, and reports the interval of expected performance without accessing model weights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T15:03:30Z)
• Automated Annotation with Generative AI Requires Validation [0.0]
  Generative large language models (LLMs) can be a powerful tool for augmenting text annotation procedures. We outline a workflow to harness the annotation potential of LLMs in a principled, efficient way. We find that LLM performance for text annotation is promising but highly contingent on both the dataset and the type of annotation task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-31T20:50:45Z)
• Investigating the Effectiveness of Task-Agnostic Prefix Prompt for Instruction Following [44.701091969256055]
  We present our finding that prepending a Task-Agnostic Prefix Prompt (TAPP) to the input improves the instruction-following ability of various Large Language Models (LLMs) during inference. We observe that both base LLMs (i.e. not fine-tuned to follow instructions) and instruction-tuned models benefit from TAPP, resulting in 34.58% and 12.26% improvement on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-28T16:06:35Z)
• Check Your Facts and Try Again: Improving Large Language Models with External Knowledge and Automated Feedback [127.75419038610455]
  Large language models (LLMs) are able to generate human-like, fluent responses for many downstream tasks. This paper proposes a LLM-Augmenter system, which augments a black-box LLM with a set of plug-and-play modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T18:48:43Z)
• Guiding Large Language Models via Directional Stimulus Prompting [114.84930073977672]
  We introduce Directional Stimulus Prompting, a novel framework for guiding black-box large language models (LLMs) toward specific desired outputs. Instead of directly adjusting LLMs, our method employs a small tunable policy model to generate an auxiliary directional stimulus prompt for each input instance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T17:44:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.