Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search

Published 4 May 2023 in cs.CL, cs.AI, and cs.LG | (2305.03495v2)

Abstract: LLMs have shown impressive performance as general purpose agents, but their abilities remain highly dependent on prompts which are hand written with onerous trial-and-error effort. We propose a simple and nonparametric solution to this problem, Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO), which is inspired by numerical gradient descent to automatically improve prompts, assuming access to training data and an LLM API. The algorithm uses minibatches of data to form natural language "gradients" that criticize the current prompt. The gradients are then "propagated" into the prompt by editing the prompt in the opposite semantic direction of the gradient. These gradient descent steps are guided by a beam search and bandit selection procedure which significantly improves algorithmic efficiency. Preliminary results across three benchmark NLP tasks and the novel problem of LLM jailbreak detection suggest that Automatic Prompt Optimization can outperform prior prompt editing techniques and improve an initial prompt's performance by up to 31%, by using data to rewrite vague task descriptions into more precise annotation instructions.

Citations (215)

Summary

  • The paper introduces ProTeGi, a novel method that automates prompt optimization for LLMs using textual gradient descent and beam search.
  • It employs a nonparametric technique to generate natural language feedback that iteratively refines prompts, achieving up to 31% improvement.
  • The approach integrates beam search with bandit selection to minimize API calls, streamlining prompt engineering in various NLP tasks.

Analyzing Automatic Prompt Optimization with ProTeGi: A Methodological Perspective

The research paper presented here focuses on the development of a novel approach named Prompt Optimization with Textual Gradients (ProTeGi) to tackle the challenge of optimizing prompts for LLMs. This work addresses a significant bottleneck in the deployment of LLMs where the efficacy of outputs is heavily reliant on the crafting of input prompts, typically achieved through labor-intensive manual processes. The authors propose a nonparametric technique inspired by the principles of numerical gradient descent, which automates the process of prompt improvement by leveraging training data and an LLM API.

Core Contribution

The main contribution of this research lies in the introduction of ProTeGi, which employs a unique form of "gradient descent" using natural language. The process involves the generation of textual gradients based on feedback extracted from errors made by the initial prompt during evaluations on a minibatch of data. These textual gradients are subsequently used to iteratively amend the prompt. The revisions are inclined against the "semantic direction" of the errors, akin to modifying parameters in gradient descent, and are streamlined by a beam search algorithm bolstered by a bandit selection method. This framework provides a systematic and efficient pathway to refine prompts using data-driven insights.

Methodological Innovations

ProTeGi innovates by adapting traditional machine learning techniques for the manipulation of textual prompts:

  • Textual Gradient Descent: The algorithm computes natural language criticisms of the current prompt, akin to gradient vectors in numerical optimization. This is achieved through static prompt templates for generating feedback (gradients) and for applying those gradients to edit prompts.
  • Beam Search with Bandit Selection: The candidates generated via edits are managed using a beam search strategy, which filters through possible prompt variations efficiently by treating the process as a bandit problem. This adaptive strategy minimizes API evaluations, optimizing prompt selection based on performance hints derived from successive iterations.

Through experimental results demonstrated on NLP benchmarks like hate speech detection and LLM jailbreak detection, the paper claims substantive enhancements over existing methods. By automating prompt generation without requiring extensive API calls or bespoke manipulation of LLM states, ProTeGi marks a distinct advancement in prompt engineering for LLMs. Key numerical results indicate up to a 31% performance improvement in prompt efficacy over initial manual inputs.

Implications and Future Directions

The implications of this research are profound for both theoretical advancement in understanding the optimization of natural language prompts and for practical applications in enhancing LLM performance across diverse tasks with reduced manual overhead. ProTeGi’s ability to interpret and react to performance deficiencies in a structured manner might lay the groundwork for further innovations in automating model fine-tuning processes, especially in black-box settings where internal adjustments are inaccessible.

Future explorations could include extending this methodology to more complex tasks, integrating more nuanced forms of feedback within the optimization loop, and exploring alternate search and selection strategies that could enhance convergence rates and solution accuracies. Furthermore, examining the generalizability of this approach across different LLM architectures and tasks could illustrate its broader applicability and inform the design of more adaptive AI systems.

In conclusion, ProTeGi offers a compelling approach to addressing current challenges in prompt engineering for LLMs, paving the way for more robust and less resource-intensive methods of optimizing linguistic interfaces for AI. This paper inspires further research into automated systems that can autonomously refine and enhance their performance through scalable, minimal-intervention frameworks.

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

Explain it Like I'm 14

Overview

This paper is about helping people write better instructions (called “prompts”) for LLMs like ChatGPT. Good prompts make LLMs perform tasks more accurately, but writing them is often slow and involves a lot of trial and error. The authors propose a simple way to automatically improve prompts using feedback from the LLM itself, so the instructions get clearer and more helpful over time.

What questions does the paper try to answer?

  • Can we automatically rewrite a prompt to make an LLM perform better on a task?
  • Can we do this using only the LLM’s public API (no special access to its internal parts)?
  • Can the method be efficient (not too many costly API calls) and work across different tasks?

How does the method work?

Think of the process like improving a recipe with taste tests:

  1. Test the current recipe (prompt) on a small plate of dishes (a minibatch of examples).
  2. Ask a food critic (the LLM) to explain what went wrong in plain language—these comments are “textual gradients.” In standard machine learning, a gradient points uphill toward more error. Here, the “textual gradient” is a short written critique explaining what made the prompt produce mistakes.
  3. Use those comments to rewrite the recipe (edit the prompt) in the opposite direction—fix the problems the critic mentioned.
  4. Don’t just make one rewrite—make several versions. Keep the best few and repeat the cycle.

Two ideas help this process:

  • Beam search: Imagine a talent show where only the top few contestants move on each round. At each step, the method creates many candidate prompts and keeps only the best handful to continue improving.
  • Bandit selection: Testing every candidate on every example would be expensive. Instead, they use a “multi-armed bandit” strategy (like trying different slot machines with limited coins) to quickly estimate which prompts are most promising without fully testing them all. This saves time and money.

In everyday terms: the system repeatedly asks the LLM “what was wrong with these answers?” and “please rewrite the instructions to fix that,” then keeps the most promising rewrites, testing them efficiently until it finds a better prompt.

What did they find?

The authors tested their method (called ProTeGi) on four tasks:

  • Detecting “jailbreak” attempts (messages trying to trick an AI into breaking its rules)
  • Identifying hate speech (Ethos)
  • Detecting fake news (Liar)
  • Spotting sarcasm (Arabic sarcasm dataset)

Key results:

  • ProTeGi improved the original prompts by up to 31%.
  • It beat other prompt-improvement methods (like random edits and some reinforcement learning approaches) by about 4–8% on average.
  • It needed fewer API calls than some competitors, making it more efficient.
  • RLHF-tuned models (like ChatGPT and GPT-4) worked better with this method than older models.
  • Most improvements happened within a few rounds (around three), suggesting you don’t need very long optimization runs.

Why is this important? Because it shows we can use the LLM’s own feedback to systematically refine prompts, turning vague instructions into clear, step-by-step guidelines that help the model perform better.

What does this mean going forward?

If you want an AI to do a job well, good instructions matter. This research shows a practical way to:

  • Reduce the guesswork and manual effort in writing prompts
  • Get clearer, more precise instructions that improve accuracy
  • Do it using only an LLM’s API—no special access needed

Potential impact:

  • Faster development of reliable AI workflows (e.g., moderation, fact-checking, safety checks like jailbreak detection)
  • More interpretable prompting, because the “textual gradients” are human-readable critiques
  • A foundation for future improvements, like adjusting how big each edit should be, trying more types of tasks (summarization, chatbots), and tuning the selection strategies even further

In short, ProTeGi is like a smart editor for AI instructions: it learns from mistakes, rewrites the prompt, and keeps the best versions—making LLMs more accurate and easier to use.

Open Problems

We found no open problems mentioned in this paper.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 8 tweets with 57 likes about this paper.