What's the Difference? Supporting Users in Identifying the Effects of Prompt and Model Changes Through Token Patterns
Michael A. Hedderich, Anyi Wang, Raoyuan Zhao, Florian Eichin, Jonas Fischer, Barbara Plank
Abstract
Prompt engineering for large language models is challenging, as even small prompt perturbations or model changes can significantly impact the generated output texts. Existing evaluation methods of LLM outputs, either automated metrics or human evaluation, have limitations, such as providing limited insights or being labor-intensive. We propose Spotlight, a new approach that combines both automation and human analysis. Based on data mining techniques, we automatically distinguish between random (decoding) variations and systematic differences in language model outputs. This process provides token patterns that describe the systematic differences and guide the user in manually analyzing the effects of their prompts and changes in models efficiently. We create three benchmarks to quantitatively test the reliability of token pattern extraction methods and demonstrate that our approach provides new insights into established prompt data. From a human-centric perspective, through demonstration studies and a user study, we show that our token pattern approach helps users understand the systematic differences of language model outputs. We are further able to discover relevant differences caused by prompt and model changes (e.g. related to gender or culture), thus supporting the prompt engineering process and human-centric model behavior research.
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 85f59fe7-c12a-4b65-aaec-49a3341f0431Builds on16
- The Curious Case of Neural Text DegenerationAri Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes et al.ICLR 2020 · 4,112 citations
- Why Johnny Can't Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM PromptsJ. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Richmond Y. Wong, Bjoern Hartmann, Qian YangCHI 2023 · 892 citations
- TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language ModelsJohn Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee et al.CHI 2022 · 202 citations
- RAIN: Your Language Models Can Align Themselves without FinetuningYuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Jinjing Zhao, Chao Zhang et al.ICLR 2024 · 171 citations
- Adaptive Testing and Debugging of NLP ModelsMarco Túlio Ribeiro, Scott M. LundbergACL 2022 · 99 citations
Related papers
- Towards Dataset-Scale and Feature-Oriented Evaluation of Text Summarization in Large Language Model PromptsSam Yu-Te Lee, Aryaman Bahukhandi, Dongyu Liu, Kwan-Liu MaIEEE VIS 2024 · 18 citations
- Statistical Hypothesis Testing for Auditing Robustness in Language ModelsPaulius Rauba, Qiyao Wei, Mihaela van der SchaarICML 2025
- PrExMe! Large Scale Prompt Exploration of Open Source LLMs for Machine Translation and Summarization EvaluationChristoph Leiter, Steffen EgerEMNLP 2024 · 5 citations
- Teach Better or Show Smarter? On Instructions and Exemplars in Automatic Prompt OptimizationXingchen Wan, Ruoxi Sun, Hootan Nakhost, Sercan Ö. ArikNeurIPS 2024 · 35 citations
- Improving Diversity of Demographic Representation in Large Language Models via Collective-Critiques and Self-VotingPreethi Lahoti, Nicholas Blumm, Xiao Ma, Raghavendra Kotikalapudi et al.EMNLP 2023 · 14 citations
