Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingent

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04818v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2025 21:09:12 GMT
• Title: Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingent
• Authors: Lennart Meincke, Ethan Mollick, Lilach Mollick, Dan Shapiro,
• Abstract summary: This is the first of a series of short reports that seek to help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working with AI.<n>There is no single standard for measuring whether a Large Language Model (LLM) passes a benchmark.<n>It is hard to know in advance whether a particular prompting approach will help or harm the LLM's ability to answer any particular question.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This is the first of a series of short reports that seek to help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working with AI through rigorous testing. In this report, we demonstrate two things: - There is no single standard for measuring whether a Large Language Model (LLM) passes a benchmark, and that choosing a standard has a big impact on how well the LLM does on that benchmark. The standard you choose will depend on your goals for using an LLM in a particular case. - It is hard to know in advance whether a particular prompting approach will help or harm the LLM's ability to answer any particular question. Specifically, we find that sometimes being polite to the LLM helps performance, and sometimes it lowers performance. We also find that constraining the AI's answers helps performance in some cases, though it may lower performance in other cases. Taken together, this suggests that benchmarking AI performance is not one-size-fits-all, and also that particular prompting formulas or approaches, like being polite to the AI, are not universally valuable.

Related papers

• Humanity's Last Exam [253.50278256434757]
  Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) is a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge.<n>It consists of 2,700 questions across dozens of subjects, including mathematics, humanities, and the natural sciences.<n>Each question has a known solution that is unambiguous and easily verifiable, but cannot be quickly answered via internet retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T05:27:46Z)
• GAOKAO-Eval: Does high scores truly reflect strong capabilities in LLMs? [32.972545797220924]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated using human-crafted benchmarks. GAOKAO-Eval reveals that high scores still fail to truly reflect human-aligned capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T11:38:10Z)
• SpecTool: A Benchmark for Characterizing Errors in Tool-Use LLMs [77.79172008184415]
  SpecTool is a new benchmark to identify error patterns in LLM output on tool-use tasks. We show that even the most prominent LLMs exhibit these error patterns in their outputs. Researchers can use the analysis and insights from SPECTOOL to guide their error mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T18:56:22Z)
• Leaving the barn door open for Clever Hans: Simple features predict LLM benchmark answers [10.786564839628952]
  Internal validity of AI benchmarks is crucial for ensuring they are free from confounding factors. We investigate the possibility that AI systems can solve benchmarks in unintended ways, bypassing the capability being tested.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T15:05:41Z)
• Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains.<n>LLMs often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T14:34:32Z)
• 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)
• InfiMM-Eval: Complex Open-Ended Reasoning Evaluation For Multi-Modal Large Language Models [50.03163753638256]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly prominent in the field of artificial intelligence. Our benchmark comprises three key reasoning categories: deductive, abductive, and analogical reasoning. We evaluate a selection of representative MLLMs using this rigorously developed open-ended multi-step elaborate reasoning benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-20T07:06:31Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• Attributed Question Answering: Evaluation and Modeling for Attributed Large Language Models [68.37431984231338]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive results across a variety of tasks while requiring little or no direct supervision. We believe the ability of an LLM to an attribute to the text that it generates is likely to be crucial for both system developers and users in this setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T18:45:29Z)

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.