Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2304.03609 v2 pith:63F2UVJI submitted 2023-04-07 cs.CL cs.LG

Revisiting Automated Prompting: Are We Actually Doing Better?

classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords promptingautomatedlearningdemonstratesdownstreamfew-shotfine-tuningk-shot
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
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.