mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Paraphrase Types Elicit Prompt Engineering Capabilities

arXiv 2406.19898 ↗First posted 28 Jun 2024cs.CLcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Much of the success of modern language models depends on finding a suitable prompt to instruct the model. Until now, it has been largely unknown how variations in the linguistic expression of prompts affect these models. This study systematically and empirically evaluates which linguistic features influence models through paraphrase types, i.e., different linguistic changes at particular positions. We measure behavioral changes for five models across 120 tasks and six families of paraphrases (i.e., morphology, syntax, lexicon, lexico-syntax, discourse, and others). We also control for other prompt engineering factors (e.g., prompt length, lexical diversity, and proximity to training data). Our results show a potential for language models to improve tasks when their prompts are adapted in specific paraphrase types (e.g., 6.7% median gain in Mixtral 8x7B; 5.5% in LLaMA 3 8B). In particular, changes in morphology and lexicon, i.e., the vocabulary used, showed promise in improving prompts. These findings contribute to developing more robust language models capable of handling variability in linguistic expression.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2024.

Builds on

23 of 53 references.

References · 23

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  3. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  4. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  5. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
  6. 2021Scaling Language Models: Methods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gophercited by 1,199
  7. 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
  8. 2019How Can We Know What Language Models Know?cited by 953
  9. 2020Exploiting Cloze Questions for Few Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inferencecited by 934
  10. 2022Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Taskscited by 858
  11. 2021P-Tuning v2: Prompt Tuning Can Be Comparable to Fine-tuning Universally Across Scales and Taskscited by 686
  12. 2021Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigmcited by 599
11 more
  1. 2022Unnatural Instructions: Tuning Language Models with (Almost) No Human Laborcited by 395
  2. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
  3. 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
  4. 2022Instruction Induction: From Few Examples to Natural Language Task Descriptionscited by 152
  5. 2021Differentiable Prompt Makes Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learnerscited by 115
  6. 2020Birds have four legs?! NumerSense: Probing Numerical Commonsense Knowledge of Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 110
  7. 2013From Amateurs to Connoisseurs: Modeling the Evolution of User Expertise through Online Reviewscited by 107
  8. 2022An Information-theoretic Approach to Prompt Engineering Without Ground Truth Labelscited by 88
  9. 2023The language of prompting: What linguistic properties make a prompt successful?cited by 43
  10. 2022How Large Language Models are Transforming Machine-Paraphrased Plagiarismcited by 38
  11. 2023How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity?cited by 34

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 9; 2026: 4.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: