The DOI matches its DataCite record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning
Open accessAbstract
In this work, we explore "prompt tuning", a simple yet effective mechanism for learning "soft prompts" to condition frozen language models to perform specific downstream tasks. Unlike the discrete text prompts used by GPT-3, soft prompts are learned through backpropagation and can be tuned to incorporate signal from any number of labeled examples. Our end-to-end learned approach outperforms GPT-3's "few-shot" learning by a large margin. More remarkably, through ablations on model size using T5, we show that prompt tuning becomes more competitive with scale: as models exceed billions of parameters, our method "closes the gap" and matches the strong performance of model tuning (where all model weights are tuned). This finding is especially relevant in that large models are costly to share and serve, and the ability to reuse one frozen model for multiple downstream tasks can ease this burden. Our method can be seen as a simplification of the recently proposed "prefix tuning" of Li and Liang (2021), and we provide a comparison to this and other similar approaches. Finally, we show that conditioning a frozen model with soft prompts confers benefits in robustness to domain transfer, as compared to full model tuning.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These approaches become inapplicable when there is only API access to the LLM.”
From Large Language Models as Optimizers (2023) · cites this paper as Lester et al., 2021
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.
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
(2010) · International Conference on Machine Learning · Cited by 13,995
Deep Contextualized Word Representations
Peters, M., Neumann, M., Iyyer, M., Gardner, M., Clark, C., Lee, K., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1202 · Cited by 11,983
Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks
Graves, A., Mohamed, A.-R., & Hinton, G. (2013) · 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2013.6638947 · Cited by 8,893
Lewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821
seaborn: statistical data visualization
Waskom, M. (2021) · Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.03021 · Cited by 7,310
SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text
Rajpurkar, P., Zhang, J., Lopyrev, K., & Liang, P. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1264 · Cited by 6,208
Kudo, T., & Richardson, J. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-2012 · Cited by 4,454
Hansen, L. K., & Salamon, P. (1990) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/34.58871 · Cited by 4,260
Universal Language Model Fine-tuning for Text Classification
Howard, J., & Ruder, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1031 · Cited by 4,100
Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles
Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., & Blundell, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1612.01474 · Cited by 3,666
Prefix-Tuning: Optimizing Continuous Prompts for Generation
Li, X. L., & Liang, P. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.353 · Cited by 2,473
Parameter-efficient transfer learning for NLP
Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., de Laroussilhe, Q., Gesmundo, A., Attariyan, M., & Gelly, S. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.00751 · Cited by 2,270
The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment Challenge
Dagan, I., Glickman, O., & Magnini, B. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11736790_9 · Cited by 1,674
(2018) · International Conference on Learning Representations · Cited by 1,621
Liu, X., Zheng, Y., Du, Z., Ding, M., Qian, Y., Yang, Z., & Tang, J. (2023) · AI Open · doi:10.1016/j.aiopen.2023.08.012 · Cited by 1,428
Exploiting Cloze-Questions for Few-Shot Text Classification and Natural Language Inference
Schick, T., & Schütze, H. (2021) · Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.20 · Cited by 1,305
AutoPrompt: Eliciting Knowledge from Language Models with Automatically Generated Prompts
Shin, T., Razeghi, Y., Logan IV, R. L., Wallace, E., & Singh, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.346 · Cited by 1,279
Automatically Constructing a Corpus of Sentential Paraphrases.
Dolan, W. B., & Brockett, C. (2005) · Cited by 1,101
SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
Wang, A., Pruksachatkun, Y., Nangia, N., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.00537 · Cited by 1,051
RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinations
Lai, G., Xie, Q., Liu, H., Yang, Y., & Hovy, E. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d17-1082 · Cited by 1,044
How Can We Know What Language Models Know?
Jiang, Z., Xu, F. F., Araki, J., & Neubig, G. (2020) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00324 · Cited by 1,002
Levesque, H. J., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L. (2011) · Cited by 879
Intrinsic Dimensionality Explains the Effectiveness of Language Model Fine-Tuning
Aghajanyan, A., Gupta, S., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2021) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.568 · Cited by 723
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1300 · Cited by 655
Learning multiple visual domains with residual adapters
Rebuffi, S.-A., Bilen, H., & Vedaldi, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.08045 · Cited by 605
The pascal recognising textual entailment challenge
Dagan, I., & Glickman, O. (2005) · Cited by 587
MAD-X: An Adapter-Based Framework for Multi-Task Cross-Lingual Transfer
Pfeiffer, J., Vulić, I., Gurevych, I., & Ruder, S. (2020) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.617 · Cited by 577
The Seventh PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge.
Bentivogli, L., Clark, P. E., Dagan, I., & Giampiccolo, D. (2008) · Cited by 533
Zero-Shot Relation Extraction via Reading Comprehension
Levy, O., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2017) · Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL 2017) · doi:10.18653/v1/k17-1034 · Cited by 482 · cited 2×
“For this task, several different question answering datasets (Dua et al., 2019; Saha et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2017; Levy et al., 2017; Kembhavi et al., 2017; Rajpurkar et al., 2016) are converted into a singular, extractive format.”
BackgroundThe CommitmentBank: Investigating projection in naturally occurring discourse
de Marneffe, M.-C., Simons, M., & Tonhauser, J. (2019) · Digital Access to Libraries · doi:10.18148/sub/2019.v23i2.601 · Cited by 471
Looking Beyond the Surface: A Challenge Set for Reading Comprehension over Multiple Sentences
Khashabi, D., Chaturvedi, S., Roth, M., Upadhyay, S., & Roth, D. (2018) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1023 · Cited by 407
DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs
Dua, D., Wang, Y., Dasigi, P., Stanovsky, G., Singh, S., & Gardner, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1246 · Cited by 393 · cited 2×
“Of the datasets where model tuning is better, we see that DROP shares a domain (Wikipedia) with SQuAD and is thus one of the smallest domain transfers.”
BackgroundLearning How to Ask: Querying LMs with Mixtures of Soft Prompts
Qin, G., & Eisner, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.410 · Cited by 342
ReCoRD: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Commonsense Reading ComprehensionPreprint
Zhang, S., Liu, X., Liu, J., Gao, J., Duh, K., & Durme, B. V. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.12885 · Cited by 339
Choice of Plausible Alternatives: An Evaluation of Commonsense Causal Reasoning
Roemmele, M., Bejan, C. A., & Gordon, A. S. (2011) · Cited by 334
GLU Variants Improve Transformer
Shazeer, N. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2002.05202 · Cited by 303
MRQA 2019 Shared Task: Evaluating Generalization in Reading Comprehension
Fisch, A., Talmor, A., Jia, R., Seo, M., Choi, E., & Chen, D. (2019) · Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering (MRQA) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-5801 · Cited by 254
Kembhavi, A., Seo, M., Schwenk, D., Choi, J., Farhadi, A., & Hajishirzi, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.571 · Cited by 244 · cited 5×
“The out-of-domain datasets are TextbookQA (Kembhavi et al., 2017), RACE (Lai et al., 2017), BioASQ ( http://bioasq. org/ ), RE (Levy et al., 2017), DuoRC (Saha et al., 2018), and DROP (Dua et al., 2019). model (+ 3 .”
BackgroundInfluentialWARP: Word-level Adversarial ReProgramming
Hambardzumyan, K., Khachatrian, H., & May, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.381 · Cited by 243
Task2Vec: Task Embedding for Meta-Learning
Achille, A., Lam, M., Tewari, R., Ravichandran, A., Maji, S., Fowlkes, C. C., Soatto, S., & Perona, P. (2019) · IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) · doi:10.1109/iccv.2019.00653 · Cited by 210
DuoRC: Towards Complex Language Understanding with Paraphrased Reading Comprehension
Saha, A., Aralikatte, R., Khapra, M. M., & Sankaranarayanan, K. (2018) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/p18-1156 · Cited by 125
Few-Shot Text Generation with Pattern-Exploiting TrainingPreprint
Schick, T., & Schütze, H. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.11926 · Cited by 113
A Surprisingly Robust Trick for the Winograd Schema Challenge
Kocijan, V., Cretu, A.-M., Camburu, O.-M., Yordanov, Y., & Lukasiewicz, T. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1478 · Cited by 81
WiC: 10, 000 Example Pairs for Evaluating Context-Sensitive Representations.Preprint
Pilehvar, M. T., & Camacho-Collados, J. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 27
Transforming task representations to perform novel tasks
Lampinen, A. K., & McClelland, J. L. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2008852117 · Cited by 15
Few-shot Sequence Learning with TransformersPreprint
Logeswaran, L., Lee, A., Ott, M., Lee, H., Ranzato, M., & Szlam, A. D. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.09543 · Cited by 11
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D 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 Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris 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, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
- Marie-Catherine De Marneff, Mandy Simons, and Ju- dith Tonhauser. 2019. The CommitmentBank: In- vestigating projection in naturally occurring dis- course. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23.
- Danilo Giampiccolo, Bernardo Magnini, Ido Dagan, and Bill Dolan. 2007. The third PASCAL recog- nizing textual entailment challenge. In Proceedings of the ACL-PASCAL workshop on textual entailment and paraphrasing, pages 1-9. Association for Com- putational Linguistics.
- PMLR.
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Kather- ine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to- text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 21(140):1-67.
- Melissa Roemmele, Cosmin Adrian Bejan, and An- drew S Gordon. 2011. Choice of plausible alterna- tives: An evaluation of commonsense causal reason- ing. In 2011 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.
- Noam Shazeer and Mitchell Stern. 2018. Adafactor: Adaptive learning rates with sublinear memory cost. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 4596-4604.
- PMLR.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.13138 · Cited by 4,083
Large language models encode clinical knowledge
Singhal, K., Azizi, S., Tu, T., Mahdavi, S. S., Wei, J., Chung, H. W., Scales, N., Tanwani, A., Cole-Lewis, H., Pfohl, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2 · Cited by 4,083
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361
Learning to Prompt for Vision-Language Models
Zhou, K., Yang, J., Loy, C. C., & Liu, Z. (2022) · International Journal of Computer Vision · doi:10.1007/s11263-022-01653-1 · Cited by 3,304
“Most related to our work are continuous prompt learning methods (Zhong et al., 2021; Li and Liang, 2021; Lester et al., 2021) which optimize continuous vectors in the word embedding space.”
BackgroundOn the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models
Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., Bernstein, M. S., Bohg, J., Bosselut, A., Brunskill, E., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07258 · Cited by 2,676
Metadata
- Authors
- Lester, B., Al-Rfou, R., & Constant, N.
- Affiliations
- Google (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- Pages
- 3045-3059
- arXiv
- 2104.08691
- OpenAlex
- W3152956381
- Cited by
- 3,092
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 512 · 2025: 889 · 2024: 754 · 2023: 649 · 2022: 246 · 2021: 40
- FWCI
- 195.07
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- prompt tuning, soft prompts, parameter-efficient fine-tuning, frozen language models, few-shot learning, model size, prefix tuning, T5, 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
