Cited by 78Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

GrIPS: Gradient-free, Edit-based Instruction Search for Prompting Large Language Models

Open access
Prasad, Archiki, Hase, Peter, Zhou, Xiang, Bansal, Mohit·2023·Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Providing natural language instructions in prompts is a useful new paradigm for improving task performance of large language models in a zero-shot setting.Recent work has aimed to improve such prompts via manual rewriting or gradient-based tuning.However, manual rewriting is time-consuming and requires subjective interpretation, while gradient-based tuning can be extremely computationally demanding for large models and may not be feasible for API-based models.In this work, we introduce Gradient-free Instructional Prompt Search (GRIPS), a gradient-free, edit-based search approach for improving task instructions for large language models.GRIPS takes in instructions designed for humans and automatically returns an improved, edited prompt, while allowing for API-based tuning.With Instruct-GPT models, GRIPS improves the average task performance by up to 4.30 percentage points on eight classification tasks from the NATU-RAL-INSTRUCTIONS dataset (with similar improvements for OPT, BLOOM, and FLAN-T5).We see improvements for both instructiononly prompts and instruction + k-shot examples prompts.Notably, GRIPS outperforms manual rewriting and purely example-based prompts while controlling for the available compute and data budget.Further, performance of GRIPS is comparable to select gradient-based tuning approaches.Qualitatively, we show our edits can simplify instructions and at times make them incoherent but nonetheless improve accuracy.

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/v1/2023.eacl-main.277

Cites

2 of 2 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Earlier attempts in prompt optimisation focus on edit-based approaches, which iteratively refine human-written prompts through predefined editing operations.

    “Earlier attempts in prompt optimisation focus on edit-based approaches, which iteratively refine human-written prompts through predefined editing operations, such as token insertion, deletion or substitution (Prasad et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2024a; Lu et al., 2024c; Zhang et al., 2023b; Zhou et al., 2023a; Agarwal et al., 2024).”

    From A Comprehensive Survey of Self-Evolving AI Agents: A New Paradigm Bridging Foundation Models and Lifelong Agentic Systems (2025) · cites this paper as Prasad et al., 2023

    The Abstract and the GRIPS overview describe an iterative, edit-based search that improves instructions originally designed for humans, supporting this paper as an example. But §3.2.2 specifies phrase-level deletion, swapping, paraphrasing and addition—not the token-level insertion, deletion or substitution named in the citing sentence. The Abstract also describes earlier work as manual rewriting or gradient-based tuning, so it does not support a general claim that earlier attempts focused on edit-based approaches. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GRIPS splits instructions into phrases and applies phrase-level edit operations: delete, swap, paraphrase, and addition, to progressively improve prompt quality.

    “GRIPS (Prasad et al., 2023) splits instructions into phrases and applies phrase-level edit operations: delete, swap, paraphrase, and addition, to progressively improve prompt quality.”

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: 44

  1. Jacob Andreas, Dan Klein, and Sergey Levine. 2018. Learning with latent language. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Pa- pers), pages 2166-2179, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Sidney Black, Stella Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Pieler, Usvsn Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Puro- hit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Ben Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. GPT-NeoX-20B: An open- source autoregressive language model. In Proceed- ings of BigScience Episode #5 -Workshop on Chal- lenges & Perspectives in Creating Large Language Models, pages 95-136. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  3. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020.
  4. Avia Efrat and Omer Levy. 2020. The turking test: Can language models understand instructions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11982. · arXiv
  5. Bradley Efron and Robert J Tibshirani. 1994. An intro- duction to the bootstrap. CRC press.
  6. Tianyu Gao, Adam Fisch, and Danqi Chen. 2021. Making pre-trained language models better few-shot learners. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natu- ral Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3816-3830, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Neil Houlsby, Andrei Giurgiu, Stanislaw Jastrzebski, Bruna Morrone, Quentin De Laroussilhe, Andrea Gesmundo, Mona Attariyan, and Sylvain Gelly. 2019. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 2790-2799. PMLR.
  8. Daniel Khashabi, Shane Lyu, Sewon Min, Lianhui Qin, Kyle Richardson, Sameer Singh, Sean Welleck, Han- naneh Hajishirzi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, et al. 2021. Prompt waywardness: The curious case of discretized interpretation of continuous prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.08348. · arXiv
  9. Dhruv Kumar, Lili Mou, Lukasz Golab, and Olga Vech- tomova. 2020. Iterative edit-based unsupervised sen- tence simplification. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7918-7928, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  10. Sawan Kumar and Partha Talukdar. 2021. Reorder- ing examples helps during priming-based few-shot learning. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4507-4518, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Teven Le Scao and Alexander Rush. 2021. How many data points is a prompt worth? In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2627-2636, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  12. Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The power of scale for parameter-efficient prompt tuning. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 3045-3059, Online and Punta Cana, Domini- can Republic. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  13. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. 2021. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 4582- 4597, Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  14. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2021a. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.06804. · arXiv
  15. Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2021b. Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.13586. · arXiv
  16. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021c. Gpt understands, too. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.10385. · arXiv
  17. Robert L Logan IV, Ivana Balažević, Eric Wallace, Fabio Petroni, Sameer Singh, and Sebastian Riedel. 2021. Cutting down on prompts and parameters: Simple few-shot learning with language models. In ENLSP Workshop @ NeurIPS 2021.
  18. Yao Lu, Max Bartolo, Alastair Moore, Sebastian Riedel, and Pontus Stenetorp. 2022. Fantastically ordered prompts and where to find them: Overcoming few- shot prompt order sensitivity. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettle- moyer. 2022. Rethinking the role of demonstra- tions: What makes in-context learning work? arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.12837. · arXiv
  20. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022a. Cross-task generaliza- tion via natural language crowdsourcing instructions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  21. Swaroop Mishra, Daniel Khashabi, Chitta Baral, Yejin Choi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022b. Reframing instructional prompts to gptk's language. In Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022. Association for Computational Linguis- tics.
  22. Melanie Mitchell. 1998. An introduction to genetic algorithms. MIT press.
  23. Ethan Perez, Douwe Kiela, and Kyunghyun Cho. 2021. True few-shot learning with language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  24. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, and Alexander Miller. 2019. Language models as knowl- edge bases? In Proceedings of the 2019 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 2463-2473, Hong Kong, China. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Marc Pirlot. 1996. General local search methods. Euro- pean journal of operational research, 92(3):493-511.
  26. Guanghui Qin and Jason Eisner. 2021. Learning how to ask: Querying LMs with mixtures of soft prompts. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5203-5212, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics.
  27. Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L Logan IV, Matt Gardner, and Sameer Singh. 2022. Impact of pretraining term frequencies on few-shot reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07206. · arXiv
  28. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021a. Exploiting cloze-questions for few-shot text classification and natural language inference. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 255-269, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021b. Few-shot text generation with natural language instructions. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 390- 402, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Timo Schick and Hinrich Schütze. 2021c. It's not just size that matters: Small language models are also few- shot learners. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2339-2352, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Taylor Shin, Yasaman Razeghi, Robert L. Logan IV, Eric Wallace, and Sameer Singh. 2020. AutoPrompt: Elic- iting Knowledge from Language Models with Auto- matically Generated Prompts. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 4222-4235, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03514. · arXiv
  33. Derek Tam, Rakesh R. Menon, Mohit Bansal, Shashank Srivastava, and Colin Raffel. 2021. Improving and simplifying pattern exploiting training. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 4980-4991, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  34. Yizhong Wang, Swaroop Mishra, Pegah Alipoor- molabashi, Yeganeh Kordi, Amirreza Mirzaei, Anjana Arunkumar, Arjun Ashok, Arut Selvan Dhanasekaran, Atharva Naik, David Stap, et al. 2022. Benchmarking generalization via in-context instruc- tions on 1,600+ language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.07705. · arXiv
  35. Albert Webson and Ellie Pavlick. 2021. Do prompt- based models really understand the meaning of their prompts? arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01247. · arXiv
  36. Laura Weidinger, John Mellor, Maribeth Rauh, Conor Griffin, Jonathan Uesato, Po-Sen Huang, Myra Cheng, Mia Glaese, Borja Balle, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, et al. 2021. Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.04359. · arXiv
  37. Orion Weller, Nicholas Lourie, Matt Gardner, and Matthew E. Peters. 2020. Learning from task de- scriptions. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1361-1375, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  38. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, Sam Shleifer, Patrick von Platen, Clara Ma, Yacine Jernite, Julien Plu, Canwen Xu, Teven Le Scao, Sylvain Gugger, Mariama Drame, Quentin Lhoest, and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. Transform- ers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 38-45, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  39. Sang Michael Xie, Aditi Raghunathan, Percy Liang, and Tengyu Ma. 2022. An explanation of in-context learning as implicit bayesian inference. In Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations.
  40. Biao Zhang, Ivan Titov, and Rico Sennrich. 2020a. Fast interleaved bidirectional sequence generation. In Pro- ceedings of the Fifth Conference on Machine Trans- lation, pages 503-515, Online. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
  41. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Pe- ter Liu. 2020b. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11328-11339.
  42. PMLR.
  43. Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. · arXiv
  44. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improv- ing few-shot performance of language models. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12697-12706. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prasad, A., Hase, P., Zhou, X., & Bansal, M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2023
Pages
3845-3864
OpenAlex
W4226023695
Cited by
78
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 6
FWCI
12.78
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1846185, CAREER)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001, N66001-19-2-4031, N66001-19)
  • Office of Naval Research (N000141812871)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
instruction tuning, prompt optimization, large language models, derivative-free optimization, natural language instructions, zero-shot learning

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