What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineering

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12334v2
• Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 13:47:26 GMT
• Title: What Did I Do Wrong? Quantifying LLMs' Sensitivity and Consistency to Prompt Engineering
• Authors: Federico Errica, Giuseppe Siracusano, Davide Sanvito, Roberto Bifulco,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 8.019873464066308
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) changed the way we design and interact with software systems. Their ability to process and extract information from text has drastically improved productivity in a number of routine tasks. Developers that want to include these models in their software stack, however, face a dreadful challenge: debugging LLMs' inconsistent behavior across minor variations of the prompt. We therefore introduce two metrics for classification tasks, namely sensitivity and consistency, which are complementary to task performance. First, sensitivity measures changes of predictions across rephrasings of the prompt, and does not require access to ground truth labels. Instead, consistency measures how predictions vary across rephrasings for elements of the same class. We perform an empirical comparison of these metrics on text classification tasks, using them as guideline for understanding failure modes of the LLM. Our hope is that sensitivity and consistency will be helpful to guide prompt engineering and obtain LLMs that balance robustness with performance.

Related papers

• 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)
• An Empirical Study on Capability of Large Language Models in Understanding Code Semantics [4.638578225024275]
  Large Language Models for Code (code LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various software engineering (SE) tasks. This paper introduces EMPICA, a framework designed to evaluate the capabilities of code LLMs in understanding code semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T03:40:58Z)
• Prompt Design Matters for Computational Social Science Tasks but in Unpredictable Ways [3.779027297957693]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T18:01:43Z)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• 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)
• Contrastive Instruction Tuning [61.97704869248903]
  We propose Contrastive Instruction Tuning to maximize the similarity between semantically equivalent instruction-instance pairs. Experiments on the PromptBench benchmark show that CoIN consistently improves LLMs' robustness to unseen instructions with variations across character, word, sentence, and semantic levels by an average of +2.5% in accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T00:09:32Z)
• 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)
• How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detection [39.254432080406346]
  Even task-oriented constraints -- constraints that would naturally be included in an instruction and are not related to detection-evasion -- cause existing powerful detectors to have a large variance in detection performance. Our experiments show that the standard deviation (SD) of current detector performance on texts generated by an instruction with such a constraint is significantly larger (up to an SD of 14.4 F1-score) than that by generating texts multiple times or paraphrasing the instruction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:32:52Z)
• Semantic Consistency for Assuring Reliability of Large Language Models [9.876355290198639]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable fluency and competence across various natural language tasks. We introduce a general measure of semantic consistency, and formulate multiple versions of this metric to evaluate the performance of various LLMs. We propose a novel prompting strategy, called Ask-to-Choose (A2C), to enhance semantic consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-17T18:11:33Z)
• OverPrompt: Enhancing ChatGPT through Efficient In-Context Learning [49.38867353135258]
  We propose OverPrompt, leveraging the in-context learning capability of LLMs to handle multiple task inputs. Our experiments show that OverPrompt can achieve cost-efficient zero-shot classification without causing significant detriment to task performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:08:04Z)

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.