Eliciting Textual Descriptions from Representations of Continuous Prompts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Continuous prompts, or "soft prompts", are a widely-adopted parameter-efficient tuning strategy for large language models, but are often less favorable due to their opaque nature. Prior attempts to interpret continuous prompts relied on projecting individual prompt tokens onto the vocabulary space. However, this approach is problematic as performant prompts can yield arbitrary or contradictory text, and it interprets prompt tokens individually. In this work, we propose a new approach to interpret continuous prompts that elicits textual descriptions from their representations during model inference. Using a Patchscopes variant (Ghandeharioun et al., 2024) called InSPEcT over various tasks, we show our method often yields accurate task descriptions which become more faithful as task performance increases. Moreover, an elaborated version of InSPEcT reveals biased features in continuous prompts, whose presence correlates with biased model predictions. Providing an effective interpretability solution, InSPEcT can be leveraged to debug unwanted properties in continuous prompts and inform developers on ways to mitigate them.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2024.
Builds on
21 of 35 references.
References · 21
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
- 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,795
- 2015Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classificationcited by 2,330
- 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,847
- 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,434
- 2022Toy Models of Superpositioncited by 971
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 671
- 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 659
- 2023Eliciting Latent Predictions from Transformers with the Tuned Lenscited by 623
9 more
- 2021Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?cited by 326
- 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 310
- 2024Patchscopes: A Unifying Framework for Inspecting Hidden Representations of Language Modelscited by 235
- 2023Text Embeddings Reveal (Almost) As Much As Textcited by 192
- 2023Future Lens: Anticipating Subsequent Tokens from a Single Hidden Statecited by 121
- 2021Prompt Waywardness: The Curious Case of Discretized Interpretation of Continuous Promptscited by 64
- 2022Generating Data to Mitigate Spurious Correlations in Natural Language Inference Datasetscited by 54
- 2024InversionView: A General-Purpose Method for Reading Information from Neural Activationscited by 7
- 2024Hard Prompts Made Interpretable: Sparse Entropy Regularization for Prompt Tuning with RLcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2025Do Activation Verbalization Methods Convey Privileged Information?cited by 10
- 2026Indications of Belief-Guided Agency and Meta-Cognitive Monitoring in Large Language Modelscited by 3
- 2026Learning to Translate from Soft to Hard LLM Promptscited by 0
- 2026Not All Drift Is a Mechanism: Tracing Prompt Adaptation in LLMscited by 0
- 2026Not All Drift Is a Mechanism: Tracing Prompt Adaptation in LLMs13 Oct 2026
- 2026Learning to Translate from Soft to Hard LLM Prompts26 May 2026
- 2026Indications of Belief-Guided Agency and Meta-Cognitive Monitoring in Large Language Models2 Feb 2026
- 2025Do Activation Verbalization Methods Convey Privileged Information?16 Sep 2025