REVIEW
Revisiting Automated Prompting: Are We Actually Doing Better?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Revisiting Automated Prompting: Are We Actually Doing Better?
read the original abstract
Current literature demonstrates that Large Language Models (LLMs) are great few-shot learners, and prompting significantly increases their performance on a range of downstream tasks in a few-shot learning setting. An attempt to automate human-led prompting followed, with some progress achieved. In particular, subsequent work demonstrates automation can outperform fine-tuning in certain K-shot learning scenarios. In this paper, we revisit techniques for automated prompting on six different downstream tasks and a larger range of K-shot learning settings. We find that automated prompting does not consistently outperform simple manual prompts. Our work suggests that, in addition to fine-tuning, manual prompts should be used as a baseline in this line of research.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.