Cited by 34Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

UPRISE: Universal Prompt Retrieval for Improving Zero-Shot Evaluation

Open access
Cheng, Daixuan, Huang, Shaohan, Bi, Junyu, Zhan, Yuefeng, Liu, Jianfeng, Wang, Yujing, Sun, Hao, Wei, Furu +2 more·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Daixuan Cheng, Shaohan Huang, Junyu Bi, Yuefeng Zhan, Jianfeng Liu, Yujing Wang, Hao Sun, Furu Wei, Weiwei Deng, Qi Zhang. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2023.

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.emnlp-main.758

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • UPRISE improves LLMs' zero-shot capabilities of long-form question-answering.

    “UPRISE (Cheng et al., 2023) finetunes a lightweight prompt retriever to automatically retrieve prompts tailored to specific inputs, improving LLMs' zero-shot capabilities of long-form question-answering.”

    From The AI Hippocampus: How Far are We From Human Memory? (2026) · cites this paper as Cheng et al., 2023

    The Introduction and Method describe a fine-tuned retriever that selects prompts for zero-shot inputs. Section 5.1 reports improved performance on closed-book question answering and reading comprehension, but the paper does not establish an improvement specifically for long-form question answering. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 8

  1. Samuel R. Bowman, Gabor Angeli, Christopher Potts, and Christopher D. Manning. 2015. A large an- notated corpus for learning natural language infer- ence. In EMNLP, pages 632-642. The Association for Computational Linguistics.
  2. Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, Bill Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Dee- LIO@ACL, pages 100-114. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
  3. Xiao Liu, Yanan Zheng, Zhengxiao Du, Ming Ding, Yujie Qian, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2021. GPT understands, too. CoRR, abs/2103.10385. · arXiv
  4. Courtney Napoles, Matthew R. Gormley, and Ben- jamin Van Durme. 2012. Annotated gigaword. In AKBC-WEKEX@NAACL-HLT, pages 95-100. Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics.
  5. Victor Sanh, Albert Webson, Colin Raffel, Stephen H. Bach, Lintang Sutawika, Zaid Alyafeai, Antoine Chaffin, Arnaud Stiegler, Arun Raja, Manan Dey, M Saiful Bari, Canwen Xu, Urmish Thakker, Shanya Sharma Sharma, Eliza Szczechla, Taewoon Kim, Gunjan Chhablani, Nihal V. Nayak, Debajyoti Datta, Jonathan Chang, Mike Tian-Jian Jiang, Han Wang, Matteo Manica, Sheng Shen, Zheng Xin Yong, Harshit Pandey, Rachel Bawden, Thomas Wang, Tr- ishala Neeraj, Jos Rozen, Abheesht Sharma, An- drea Santilli, Thibault Févry, Jason Alan Fries, Ryan Teehan, Teven Le Scao, Stella Biderman, Leo Gao, Thomas Wolf, and Alexander M. Rush. 2022. Multi- task prompted training enables zero-shot task gener- alization. In ICLR. OpenReview.net.
  6. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Oana Cocarascu, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. The FEVER2.0 shared task. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERifica- tion (FEVER).
  7. Seonghyeon Ye, Joel Jang, Doyoung Kim, Yongrae Jo, and Minjoon Seo. 2022. Retrieval of soft prompt en- hances zero-shot task generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03029. · arXiv
  8. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In ACL (1), pages 4791-4800. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheng, D., Huang, S., Bi, J., Zhan, Y., Liu, J., Wang, Y., Sun, H., Wei, F., Deng, W., & Zhang, Q.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
12318-12337
OpenAlex
W4389523985
Cited by
32
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3
FWCI
5.67
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
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
zero-shot evaluation, prompt engineering, large language models

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