Soft-Prompt Tuning for Fair and Efficient LLM Benchmark Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Benchmark scores often misrepresent a large language model's (LLM's) knowledge, because they rely, e.g., on the model's ability to follow specific formatting requirements. This especially penalizes base models that may know the correct answers but lack the ability -- typically introduced in post-training -- to structure them as instructed. To overcome this, we propose soft-prompt tuning, an efficient, fair, and architecture-agnostic model evaluation. By optimizing only 10 soft-prompt vectors (roughly 0.0006% parameters for a 7B model) over a short tuning period, we adapt models to specific benchmark formats, closing gaps in format-following and ensuring that underlying knowledge is accurately reflected in benchmark scores. This allows one to fairly compare different base models -- trained with various pre-training recipes -- on benchmarks without the need for full post-training. We evaluated soft-prompt tuning across 7 models and 7 datasets. The results show that (a) soft-prompt tuning saturates format-following within 80 steps (~640 samples) making it highly efficient, (b) soft-prompt tuning significantly outperforms zero- and few-shot prompting, surfacing base model knowledge that standard prompting misses, that (c) even post-trained models can benefit from soft-prompts to maximize format compliance, and that (d) soft-prompted base model performance predicts post-trained model rankings more reliably than zero- and few-shot baselines, offering a low-cost proxy for downstream model quality. Our contributions include (1) metrics which disentangle format-following and knowledge accuracy, (2) a fairer benchmarking protocol of LLM knowledge, and (3) a cost- and memory-effective recipe to identify optimal pre-training strategies early in LLM development.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Jun 2026.
Builds on
41 of 50 references.
References · 41
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2019Parameter-Efficient Transfer Learning for NLPcited by 4,236
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,148
- 2021Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generationcited by 3,915
- 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,796
- 2021The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuningcited by 3,795
- 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
- 2017TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehensioncited by 2,955
29 more
- 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,998
- 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,434
- 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,392
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
- 2025Does Reinforcement Learning Really Incentivize Reasoning Capacity in LLMs Beyond the Base Model?cited by 982
- 2022Few-Shot Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning is Better and Cheaper than In-Context Learningcited by 896
- 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 817
- 2019Selection via Proxy: Efficient Data Selection for Deep Learningcited by 339
- 2023The Belebele Benchmark: a Parallel Reading Comprehension Dataset in 122 Language Variantscited by 311
- 2024Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Modelscited by 179
- 2025LLM Post-Training: A Deep Dive into Reasoning Large Language Modelscited by 135
- 2024Understanding Emergent Abilities of Language Models from the Loss Perspectivecited by 94
- 2024Scaling Laws for Downstream Task Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 49
- 2024Scaling Laws for Predicting Downstream Performance in LLMscited by 48
- 2024Adaptive Data Optimization: Dynamic Sample Selection with Scaling Lawscited by 47
- 2024On the Worst Prompt Performance of Large Language Modelscited by 38
- 2023How are Prompts Different in Terms of Sensitivity?cited by 35
- 2024Selecting Large Language Model to Fine-tune via Rectified Scaling Lawcited by 33
- 2023Sensitivity and Robustness of Large Language Models to Prompt Template in Japanese Text Classification Taskscited by 25
- 2024LLMs Are Biased Towards Output Formats! Systematically Evaluating and Mitigating Output Format Bias of LLMscited by 25
- 2025DOVE: A Large-Scale Multi-Dimensional Predictions Dataset Towards Meaningful LLM Evaluationcited by 21
- 2023Scaling Laws Do Not Scalecited by 13
- 2024Addressing Order Sensitivity of In-Context Demonstration Examples in Causal Language Modelscited by 12
- 2024Revisiting the Superficial Alignment Hypothesiscited by 12
- 2025Train-before-Test Harmonizes Language Model Rankingscited by 12
- 2026Do Instruction-Tuned Models Always Perform Better Than Base Models? Evidence from Math and Domain-Shifted Benchmarkscited by 4
- 2025Can Small Training Runs Reliably Guide Data Curation? Rethinking Proxy-Model Practicecited by 3
- 2025Rethinking Data Mixture for Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey and New Perspectivescited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.