mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Towards Interpretable Soft Prompts

arXiv 2504.02144 ↗First posted 2 Apr 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Soft prompts have been popularized as a cheap and easy way to improve task-specific LLM performance beyond few-shot prompts. Despite their origin as an automated prompting method, however, soft prompts and other trainable prompts remain a black-box method with no immediately interpretable connections to prompting. We create a novel theoretical framework for evaluating the interpretability of trainable prompts based on two desiderata: faithfulness and scrutability. We find that existing methods do not naturally satisfy our proposed interpretability criterion. Instead, our framework inspires a new direction of trainable prompting methods that explicitly optimizes for interpretability. To this end, we formulate and test new interpretability-oriented objective functions for two state-of-the-art prompt tuners: Hard Prompts Made Easy (PEZ) and RLPrompt. Our experiments with GPT-2 demonstrate a fundamental trade-off between interpretability and the task-performance of the trainable prompt, explicating the hardness of the soft prompt interpretability problem and revealing odd behavior that arises when one optimizes for an interpretability proxy.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 11 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Apr 2025.

Builds on

5 of 11 references.

References · 5

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,795
  3. 2019BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questionscited by 2,183
  4. 2022RLPrompt: Optimizing Discrete Text Prompts with Reinforcement Learningcited by 366
  5. 2017Style Transfer from Non-Parallel Text by Cross-Alignmentcited by 248

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

4 papers.