Teach Better or Show Smarter? On Instructions and Exemplars in Automatic Prompt Optimization

Overview

• Large language models have powerful capabilities, but their performance relies heavily on effective prompt engineering
• Automatic prompt optimization (APO) methods aim to automate this process, focusing on either optimizing instructions (instruction optimization, IO) or selecting exemplars (exemplar selection, ES)
• This paper compares the performance of representative IO and ES techniques, both in isolation and in combination, across a range of challenging tasks

Plain English Explanation

Prompt optimization is an important aspect of working with large language models. These models can perform a wide variety of tasks, but their success heavily depends on how the instructions or "prompts" are written. Automatic prompt optimization methods aim to automate this process, either by optimizing the instructions themselves (instruction optimization, IO) or by carefully selecting examples (exemplar selection, ES) to guide the model.

Despite these two approaches sharing the same goal, they have evolved largely independently, with IO receiving more research attention recently. This paper aims to bridge this gap by comprehensively comparing the performance of different IO and ES techniques, both when used alone and when combined.

The key finding is that intelligently reusing model-generated input-output pairs from the validation set as exemplars can consistently improve performance over IO methods. This is an interesting approach that hasn't been explored in depth. The paper also shows that how we select exemplars can be more important than how we optimize instructions, with simple ES strategies like random search outperforming state-of-the-art IO methods.

Moreover, the researchers found that combining ES and IO can be synergistic, with the optimal combinations surpassing the individual contributions of each approach. This suggests that studying exemplar selection as a standalone method and its combination with instruction optimization is crucial, even as highly capable instruction-following models become more common.

Technical Explanation

The paper compares the performance of representative instruction optimization (IO) and exemplar selection (ES) techniques, both in isolation and in combination, on a diverse set of challenging tasks. The IO methods include EASE, FIPO, and state-of-the-art approaches, while the ES methods include random search, greedy selection, and more sophisticated techniques.

The key finding is that intelligently reusing model-generated input-output pairs obtained from evaluating prompts on the validation set as exemplars consistently improves performance over IO methods. This approach, which the authors call "reuse ES", is an interesting strategy that has been underexplored.

The researchers also found that how we select exemplars can be more important than how we optimize instructions, with simple ES strategies like random search outperforming state-of-the-art IO methods with seed instructions without any optimization. This suggests that exemplar selection deserves greater consideration as a standalone method.

Moreover, the paper observes synergy between ES and IO, with optimal combinations of the two approaches surpassing the individual contributions. This indicates that studying exemplar selection and its optimal combination with instruction optimization remains a crucial aspect of automatic prompt optimization, even as highly capable instruction-following models become more common.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a comprehensive and insightful comparison of instruction optimization and exemplar selection techniques for prompt optimization. However, it does not address some potential limitations or areas for further research.

For instance, the paper focuses on a limited set of tasks and does not explore the performance of these methods on a wider range of applications or datasets. Additionally, the paper does not delve into the computational costs and scalability of the various techniques, which could be an important consideration for real-world deployment.

Furthermore, the paper does not investigate the potential biases or fairness implications of these prompt optimization methods, which could be an important area of concern, especially as language models are increasingly used in high-stakes applications.

Prompt optimization through human feedback is another interesting direction that could be explored in future research, as it could potentially lead to more robust and aligned prompt optimization strategies.

Overall, the paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the importance of efficient prompt optimization and the potential advantages of combining instruction optimization and exemplar selection approaches. However, further research is needed to fully understand the capabilities, limitations, and implications of these techniques.

Conclusion

This paper presents a comprehensive comparison of instruction optimization and exemplar selection methods for automatic prompt optimization, a crucial aspect of working with large language models. The key finding is that intelligently reusing model-generated exemplars can consistently outperform instruction optimization techniques, and that the selection of exemplars can be more important than the optimization of instructions.

The paper also reveals synergy between the two approaches, suggesting that studying exemplar selection as a standalone method and its optimal combination with instruction optimization deserves greater consideration in future research. As highly capable instruction-following models become more prevalent, this work highlights the continued importance of prompt optimization and the potential benefits of exploring diverse strategies for automating this process.