mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingent

arXiv 2503.04818 ↗First posted 4 Mar 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

This is the first of a series of short reports that seek to help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working with AI through rigorous testing. In this report, we demonstrate two things: - There is no single standard for measuring whether a Large Language Model (LLM) passes a benchmark, and that choosing a standard has a big impact on how well the LLM does on that benchmark. The standard you choose will depend on your goals for using an LLM in a particular case. - It is hard to know in advance whether a particular prompting approach will help or harm the LLM's ability to answer any particular question. Specifically, we find that sometimes being polite to the LLM helps performance, and sometimes it lowers performance. We also find that constraining the AI's answers helps performance in some cases, though it may lower performance in other cases. Taken together, this suggests that benchmarking AI performance is not one-size-fits-all, and also that particular prompting formulas or approaches, like being polite to the AI, are not universally valuable.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 2 of its 5 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2025.

Builds on

2 of 5 references.

References · 2

  1. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  2. 2024Should We Respect LLMs? A Cross-Lingual Study on the Influence of Prompt Politeness on LLM Performancecited by 41

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 3.

8 papers.