When Do Prompting and Prefix-Tuning Work? A Theory of Capabilities and Limitations
Aleksandar Petrov, Philip Torr, Adel Bibi
Abstract
Context-based fine-tuning methods, including prompting, in-context learning, soft prompting (also known as prompt tuning), and prefix-tuning, have gained popularity due to their ability to often match the performance of full fine-tuning with a fraction of the parameters. Despite their empirical successes, there is little theoretical understanding of how these techniques influence the internal computation of the model and their expressiveness limitations. We show that despite the continuous embedding space being more expressive than the discrete token space, soft-prompting and prefix-tuning are potentially less expressive than full fine-tuning, even with the same number of learnable parameters. Concretely, context-based fine-tuning cannot change the relative attention pattern over the content and can only bias the outputs of an attention layer in a fixed direction. This suggests that while techniques like prompting, in-context learning, soft prompting, and prefix-tuning can effectively elicit skills present in the pretrained model, they may not be able to learn novel tasks that require new attention patterns.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0cfcc2e8-107b-4acf-8540-cb57017f4769Cited by top-tier papers21
- Combining Fine-Tuning and LLM-Based Agents for Intuitive Smart Contract Auditing with JustificationsWei Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Tianwen Wang et al.ICSE 2025 · 28 citations
- Prompting a Pretrained Transformer Can Be a Universal ApproximatorAleksandar Petrov, Philip Torr, Adel BibiICML 2024 · 19 citations
- Understanding Prompt Tuning and In-Context Learning via Meta-LearningTim Genewein, Kevin Li, Jordi Grau-Moya, Anian Ruoss et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 10 citations
- Prompt Tuning Strikes Back: Customizing Foundation Models with Low-Rank Prompt AdaptationAbhinav Jain, Swarat Chaudhuri, Thomas W. Reps, Christopher M. JermaineNeurIPS 2024 · 10 citations
- Revisit Visual Prompt Tuning: The Expressiveness of Prompt ExpertsMinh Le, Anh Nguyen, Huy Nguyen, Chau Nguyen et al.ICLR 2026 · 6 citations
Builds on18
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language ModelsEdward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu et al.ICLR 2022 · 18,833 citations
- Large Language Models are Zero-Shot ReasonersTakeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 8,168 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated PromptsTaylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace et al.EMNLP 2020 · 1,162 citations
Related papers
- ATTEMPT: Parameter-Efficient Multi-task Tuning via Attentional Mixtures of Soft PromptsAkari Asai, Mohammadreza Salehi, Matthew E. Peters, Hannaneh HajishirziEMNLP 2022 · 55 citations
- On the Role of Attention in Prompt-tuningSamet Oymak, Ankit Singh Rawat, Mahdi Soltanolkotabi, Christos ThrampoulidisICML 2023 · 67 citations
- PrefixMemory-Tuning: Modernizing Prefix-Tuning by Decoupling the Prefix from AttentionHaonan Wang, Brian K Chen, Siquan Li, Liang Xinhe et al.ICLR 2026 · 5 citations
- Evaluating the Impact of Model Scale for Compositional Generalization in Semantic ParsingLinlu Qiu, Peter Shaw, Panupong Pasupat, Tianze Shi et al.EMNLP 2022 · 21 citations
- APrompt: Attention Prompt Tuning for Efficient Adaptation of Pre-trained Language ModelsQifan Wang, Yuning Mao, Jingang Wang, Hanchao Yu et al.EMNLP 2023 · 25 citations
