Pith. sign in

REVIEW 10 cited by

Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves

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 2311.04205 v2 pith:2YFEVVEQ submitted 2023-11-07 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

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

Misunderstandings arise not only in interpersonal communication but also between humans and Large Language Models (LLMs). Such discrepancies can make LLMs interpret seemingly unambiguous questions in unexpected ways, yielding incorrect responses. While it is widely acknowledged that the quality of a prompt, such as a question, significantly impacts the quality of the response provided by LLMs, a systematic method for crafting questions that LLMs can better comprehend is still underdeveloped. In this paper, we present a method named `Rephrase and Respond' (RaR), which allows LLMs to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans and provide responses in a single prompt. This approach serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We also introduce a two-step variant of RaR, where a rephrasing LLM first rephrases the question and then passes the original and rephrased questions together to a different responding LLM. This facilitates the effective utilization of rephrased questions generated by one LLM with another. Our experiments demonstrate that our methods significantly improve the performance of different models across a wide range to tasks. We further provide a comprehensive comparison between RaR and the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically. We show that RaR is complementary to CoT and can be combined with CoT to achieve even better performance. Our work not only contributes to enhancing LLM performance efficiently and effectively but also sheds light on a fair evaluation of LLM capabilities. Data and codes are available at https://github.com/uclaml/Rephrase-and-Respond.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 10 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 12 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. Revisiting Prompt Engineering: A Comprehensive Evaluation for LLM-based Personalized Recommendation

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For cost-efficient LLMs, rephrasing, step-back, and structured reasoning prompts raise ranking accuracy; for high-performance LLMs, a simple baseline prompt matches complex prompts at a fraction of the cost.

  2. Which Prompting Technique Should I Use? An Empirical Investigation of Prompting Techniques for Software Engineering Tasks

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across ten software engineering tasks and four LLMs, no prompting technique wins consistently; ES-KNN is best on many tasks, some techniques underperform the baseline, and USC is best for code QA and code generation.

  3. ORPP: Self-Optimizing Role-playing Prompts to Enhance Language Model Capabilities

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ORPP generates task-specific role-playing prompts through iterative reward-model-guided optimization on a small sample, then uses few-shot transfer to create prompts for new questions.

  4. MenTeR: A fully-automated Multi-agenT workflow for end-to-end RF/Analog Circuits Netlist Design

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MenTeR is a multi-agent LLM system that claims to automate RF/analog circuit netlist design, achieving 84.2% Pass@1 on a 24-task benchmark, but its self-generated testbench validation is shown to sometimes certify inc...

  5. QueryBandits for Hallucination Mitigation: Exploiting Semantic Features for No-Regret Rewriting

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A contextual bandit that chooses among five query-rewrite strategies, conditioned on 17 linguistic features, reduces LLM hallucination on QA benchmarks and beats static prompting and no-rewrite baselines.

  6. A comprehensive study of LLM-based argument classification: from LLAMA through GPT-4o to Deepseek-R1

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 lead argument classification on UKP and Args.me, but the advantage shifts between datasets and rests on small unverified samples.

  7. Automatic Qiskit Code Refactoring Using Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A structured taxonomy of Qiskit migration scenarios improves GPT-4's line-level refactoring precision from 0.32 to 0.55 and recall from 0.35 to 0.62 on 25 synthetic snippets.

  8. Identifying Helpful Context for LLM-based Vulnerability Repair: A Preliminary Study

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using CVE descriptions and manually selected code context in prompts, and combining the best prompts, GPT-4o fixed 26 of 42 Java vulnerabilities at least once, up from 19 with its baseline prompt.

  9. Taxonomy of migration scenarios for Qiskit refactoring using LLMs

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMs can generate a structured taxonomy of Qiskit migration and refactoring scenarios that largely overlaps with an expert-built taxonomy and adds some scenarios.

  10. PromptGuard: An Orchestrated Prompting Framework for Principled Synthetic Text Generation for Vulnerable Populations using LLMs with Enhanced Safety, Fairness, and Controllability

    cs.CV 2025-09 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A framework paper that claims its VulnGuard prompt technique cuts harmful LLM outputs by 25-30% via theoretical bounds, without a real proof or empirical test.

Pith tools