Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 cited by

Learning How to Ask: Querying LMs with Mixtures of Soft Prompts

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2104.06599 v1 pith:5H7BMODO submitted 2021-04-14 cs.CL cs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords promptslanguageinitializationknowledgelearningmodelsfactualparadigm
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Natural-language prompts have recently been used to coax pretrained language models into performing other AI tasks, using a fill-in-the-blank paradigm (Petroni et al., 2019) or a few-shot extrapolation paradigm (Brown et al., 2020). For example, language models retain factual knowledge from their training corpora that can be extracted by asking them to "fill in the blank" in a sentential prompt. However, where does this prompt come from? We explore the idea of learning prompts by gradient descent -- either fine-tuning prompts taken from previous work, or starting from random initialization. Our prompts consist of "soft words," i.e., continuous vectors that are not necessarily word type embeddings from the language model. Furthermore, for each task, we optimize a mixture of prompts, learning which prompts are most effective and how to ensemble them. Across multiple English LMs and tasks, our approach hugely outperforms previous methods, showing that the implicit factual knowledge in language models was previously underestimated. Moreover, this knowledge is cheap to elicit: random initialization is nearly as good as informed initialization.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Training-Free Token-Level Steering for LLM Personalized Co-Writing

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A token-level, training-free steering framework that improves LLM personalized co-writing by mixing the base model's posterior with a kernel-density estimate from a small user dataset.

  2. DetPO: In-Context Learning with Multi-Modal LLMs for Few-Shot Object Detection

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Detection Prompt Optimization (DetPO) improves few-shot object detection with black-box MLLMs by iteratively refining text prompts from TP/FP/FN errors on few-shot examples, gaining up to 9.7 mAP over prior black-box methods.

  3. An Efficient Evolutionary Algorithm for Few-for-Many Optimization

    cs.NE 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SoM-EMOA, a (μ+1) evolution strategy that directly minimizes the sum-of-minimum coverage objective, outperforms existing many-objective solvers on a new R2-based benchmark suite for few-for-many optimization.

  4. Stabilizing Black-Box Prompt Optimization with Textual Regularization and Signal Aggregation

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TRAS adds success-based textual regularization and Monte Carlo signal aggregation to black-box prompt optimization, improving accuracy and reducing instruction loss when moving prompts across models.

  5. PAID: Pairwise Angular-Invariant Decomposition for Continual Test-Time Adaptation

    cs.CV 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    PAID proposes Householder-based orthogonal weight updates for continual test-time adaptation, claiming that preserving pairwise angular structure of pretrained weights is a useful prior, but the math and validation fo...

  6. Evolutionary Computation and Large Language Models: A Survey of Methods, Synergies, and Applications

    cs.NE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that maps bidirectional synergies between evolutionary computation and large language models and proposes a taxonomy plus research gaps.

Pith tools