The language of prompting: What linguistic properties make a prompt successful?
Submission Type: Regular Long Paper
Submission Track: Theme Track: Large Language Models and the Future of NLP
Submission Track 2: Resources and Evaluation
Keywords: prompting, evaluation, LLMs, zero-shot, robustness, instability, instruction-tuning
TL;DR: zero-shot performance of LLMs varies considerably even for larger instruction-tuned models and doesn't correlate with perplexity in general
Abstract: The latest generation of LLMs can be prompted to achieve impressive zero-shot or few-shot performance in many NLP tasks. However, since performance is highly sensitive to the choice of prompts, considerable effort has been devoted to crowd-sourcing prompts or designing methods for prompt optimisation. Yet, we still lack a systematic understanding of how linguistic properties of prompts correlate with the task performance. In this work, we investigate how LLMs of different sizes, pre-trained and instruction-tuned, perform on prompts that are semantically equivalent, but vary in linguistic structure. We investigate both grammatical properties such as mood, tense, aspect and modality, as well as lexico-semantic variation through the use of synonyms. Our findings contradict the common assumption that LLMs achieve optimal performance on prompts which reflect language use in pretraining or instruction-tuning data. Prompts transfer poorly between datasets or models, and performance cannot generally be explained by perplexity, word frequency, word sense ambiguity or prompt length. Based on our results, we put forward a proposal for a more robust and comprehensive evaluation standard for prompting research.
Submission Number: 202
Loading