Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

When Do Prompting and Prefix-Tuning Work? A Theory of Capabilities and Limitations

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 2310.19698 v2 pith:YIBIS7VP submitted 2023-10-30 cs.LG cs.CL

classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords promptingfine-tuningprefix-tuningattentioncontext-baseddespiteexpressivefull
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original 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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. PRiSM: Benchmarking Phone Realization in Speech Models

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    PRiSM benchmarks phone recognition in speech models with intrinsic transcription and extrinsic downstream probes, finding that multilingual training and encoder-CTC architectures perform most consistently while LALMs ...

Pith tools