# Predictive Prompt Analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.18883 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18883/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in SAE features and their applications, one of 13 directions in Mechanistic interpretability.
- Builds on 10 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2025.

## Placed in

- Mechanistic interpretability / [SAE features and their applications](https://mlsanity.com/mechinterp/sae-features-and-their-applications/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.13586/) (2021)
- [Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08600/) (2023)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16797/) (2023)
- [Transferability in Machine Learning: from Phenomena to Black-Box Attacks using Adversarial Samples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1605.07277/) (2016)
- [A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07927/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models for Software Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10620/) (2023)
- [Gemma Scope: Open Sparse Autoencoders Everywhere All At Once on Gemma 2](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05147/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Fine-tuning on simulated data outperforms prompting for agent tone of voice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.04889/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are machine learning models that have seen widespread adoption due to their capability of handling previously difficult tasks. LLMs, due to their training, are sensitive to how exactly a question is presented, also known as prompting. However, prompting well is challenging, as it has been difficult to uncover principles behind prompting -- generally, trial-and-error is the most common way of improving prompts, despite its significant computational cost. In this context, we argue it would be useful to perform `predictive prompt analysis', in which an automated technique would perform a quick analysis of a prompt and predict how the LLM would react to it, relative to a goal provided by the user. As a demonstration of the concept, we present Syntactic Prevalence Analyzer (SPA), a predictive prompt analysis approach based on sparse autoencoders (SAEs). SPA accurately predicted how often an LLM would generate target syntactic structures during code synthesis, with up to 0.994 Pearson correlation between the predicted and actual prevalence of the target structure. At the same time, SPA requires only 0.4% of the time it takes to run the LLM on a benchmark. As LLMs are increasingly used during and integrated into modern software development, our proposed predictive prompt analysis concept has the potential to significantly ease the use of LLMs for both practitioners and researchers.