Cited by 28Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Prompt Compression and Contrastive Conditioning for Controllability and Toxicity Reduction in Language Models

Open access
Wingate, David, Shoeybi, Mohammad, Sorensen, Taylor·2022·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022

Abstract

We explore the idea of compressing the prompts used to condition language models, and show that compressed prompts can retain a substantive amount of information about the original prompt.For severely compressed prompts, while fine-grained information is lost, abstract information and general sentiments can be retained with surprisingly few parameters, which can be useful in the context of decodetime algorithms for controllability and toxicity reduction.We explore contrastive conditioning to steer language model generation towards desirable text and away from undesirable text, and find that some complex prompts can be effectively compressed into a single token to guide generation.We also show that compressed prompts are largely compositional, and can be constructed such that they can be used to control independent aspects of generated text.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.412

Cites

27 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Lav R. Varshney, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019b. Ctrl: A conditional transformer language model for control- lable generation. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Sandra G. Mayson. 2018. Bias in, Bias out. Yale Law Journal, 128:2218.
  3. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019a. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8):9.
  4. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. 2019b. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI Blog, 1(8):9.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wingate, D., Shoeybi, M., & Sorensen, T.
Affiliations
  • Brigham Young University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022
Published
2022
Pages
5621-5634
OpenAlex
W4385567182
Cited by
26
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5
FWCI
2.90
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2141680)
  • Nvidia
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
prompt compression, controllability, toxicity reduction, language model generation, prompt conditioning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review