mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Prompts Generalize with Low Data: Non-vacuous Generalization Bounds for Optimizing Prompts with More Informative Priors

arXiv 2510.08413 ↗First posted 9 Oct 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Many prompt engineering techniques have been successful in practice, even when optimizing over a large prompt space with with a small amount of task-specific data. Recent work has partially explained this success by showing generalization bounds which apply PAC-Bayes theory to the discrete prompt space, but they are non-vacuous only in data-rich scenarios. We argue that such widespread success can be more fully explained through more carefully considering data- or distribution-dependent perplexity, which acts as an effective prior and steers the optimization towards prompts that are more ``natural'' for the task at hand. We derive novel generalization bounds that are non-vacuous for data-scarce prompt optimization via more useful priors, formally analyzing how perplexity regularization tightens these bounds by limiting exploration. Empirically, we explore both the bounds' effectiveness and the practical benefits of perplexity regularization in improving prompt generalization.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Oct 2025.

Builds on

28 of 36 references.

References · 28

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  2. 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,878
  3. 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,769
  4. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,222
  5. 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,657
  6. 2020Making Pre-trained Language Models Better Few-shot Learnerscited by 1,255
  7. 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
  8. 2023Large Language Models as Optimizerscited by 830
  9. 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 628
  10. 2021Prompt Programming for Large Language Models: Beyond the Few-Shot Paradigmcited by 599
  11. 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 527
  12. 2019Fantastic Generalization Measures and Where to Find Themcited by 507
16 more
  1. 2023Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexitycited by 411
  2. 2021User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes boundscited by 234
  3. 2023PromptAgent: Strategic Planning with Language Models Enables Expert-level Prompt Optimizationcited by 226
  4. 2022Demystifying Prompts in Language Models via Perplexity Estimationcited by 215
  5. 2024Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?cited by 132
  6. 2019Information-Theoretic Generalization Bounds for SGLD via Data-Dependent Estimatescited by 118
  7. 2025Multi-Agent Design: Optimizing Agents with Better Prompts and Topologiescited by 106
  8. 2024Perplexed by Perplexity: Perplexity-Based Data Pruning With Small Reference Modelscited by 83
  9. 2021Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexitycited by 77
  10. 2020ETHOS: an Online Hate Speech Detection Datasetcited by 66
  11. 2022PLOT: Prompt Learning with Optimal Transport for Vision-Language Modelscited by 64
  12. 2023Non-Vacuous Generalization Bounds for Large Language Modelscited by 53
  13. 2023Prompt Risk Control: A Rigorous Framework for Responsible Deployment of Large Language Modelscited by 17
  14. 2023Understanding prompt engineering may not require rethinking generalizationcited by 10
  15. 2024Perplexed: Understanding When Large Language Models are Confusedcited by 9
  16. 2024PLPP: Prompt Learning with Perplexity Is Self-Distillation for Vision-Language Modelscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.