Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Prompting Science Report 1: Prompt Engineering is Complicated and Contingent

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 2503.04818 v1 pith:U7YDS3OW submitted 2025-03-04 cs.CL cs.AI

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

This is the first of a series of short reports that seek to help business, education, and policy leaders understand the technical details of working with AI through rigorous testing. In this report, we demonstrate two things: - There is no single standard for measuring whether a Large Language Model (LLM) passes a benchmark, and that choosing a standard has a big impact on how well the LLM does on that benchmark. The standard you choose will depend on your goals for using an LLM in a particular case. - It is hard to know in advance whether a particular prompting approach will help or harm the LLM's ability to answer any particular question. Specifically, we find that sometimes being polite to the LLM helps performance, and sometimes it lowers performance. We also find that constraining the AI's answers helps performance in some cases, though it may lower performance in other cases. Taken together, this suggests that benchmarking AI performance is not one-size-fits-all, and also that particular prompting formulas or approaches, like being polite to the AI, are not universally valuable.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Prompting as Scientific Inquiry

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Position paper arguing that prompting LLMs is a form of behavioral science and should be recognized as a core scientific method alongside mechanistic interpretability.

Pith tools