The DOI matches its DataCite record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testing
Open accessAbstract
Evaluating outputs of large language models (LLMs) is challenging, requiring making -- and making sense of -- many responses. Yet tools that go beyond basic prompting tend to require knowledge of programming APIs, focus on narrow domains, or are closed-source. We present ChainForge, an open-source visual toolkit for prompt engineering and on-demand hypothesis testing of text generation LLMs. ChainForge provides a graphical interface for comparison of responses across models and prompt variations. Our system was designed to support three tasks: model selection, prompt template design, and hypothesis testing (e.g., auditing). We released ChainForge early in its development and iterated on its design with academics and online users. Through in-lab and interview studies, we find that a range of people could use ChainForge to investigate hypotheses that matter to them, including in real-world settings. We identify three modes of prompt engineering and LLM hypothesis testing: opportunistic exploration, limited evaluation, and iterative refinement.
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
“Second, many users write their LLM pipelines as chains of multiple LLM calls [1, 11, 14, 53].”
From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Similarly, Arawjo et al. [1] found that even people familiar with LLMs (developers, academics in ML) struggled to scale up their evaluations, appearing to over-generalize from a limited number of outputs even after an automated evaluation pipeline was setup.”
From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Like prior work has found for cross-LLM comparison [1], this tacit understanding of criteria could be highly subjective and contradictory across participants.”
From Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
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
Why Johnny Can’t Prompt: How Non-AI Experts Try (and Fail) to Design LLM Prompts
Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Wong, R. Y., Hartmann, B., & Yang, Q. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581388 · Cited by 1,274
Wu, T., Terry, M. A., & Cai, C. J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517582 · Cited by 673
Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time)
Greenberg, S., & Buxton, B. (2008) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357074 · Cited by 601
Grounded Copilot: How Programmers Interact with Code-Generating Models
Barke, S., James, M. B., & Polikarpova, N. (2023) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3586030 · Cited by 436
Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research
Ledo, D., Houben, S., Vermeulen, J., Marquardt, N., Oehlberg, L., & Greenberg, S. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173610 · Cited by 324
Evaluating user interface systems research
Olsen, D. R. (2007) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/1294211.1294256 · Cited by 235
Graphologue: Exploring Large Language Model Responses with Interactive Diagrams
Jiang, P., Rayan, J. A., Dow, S. P., & Xia, H. (2023) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606737 · Cited by 213
Necessary conditions of learning
Reeves, P. M., Sperling, R. A., Follmer, D. J., Pun, W. H., Oeder, C. E., & Towle, A. L. (2016) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2015.1092729 · Cited by 213
Interactive and Visual Prompt Engineering for Ad-hoc Task Adaptation With Large Language Models
Strobelt, H., Webson, A., Sanh, V., Hoover, B., Beyer, J., Pfister, H., & Rush, A. M. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209479 · Cited by 204
PromptChainer: Chaining Large Language Model Prompts through Visual Programming
Wu, T., Jiang, E., Donsbach, A., Gray, J., Molina, A., Terry, M., & Cai, C. J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519729 · Cited by 198
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Stephen Brade, Bryan Wang, Mauricio Sousa, Sageev Oore, and Tovi Grossman. 2023. Promptify: Text-to-Image Generation through Interactive Prompt Explo- ration with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09337 (2023). · arXiv
- Gelei Deng, Yi Liu, Yuekang Li, Kailong Wang, Ying Zhang, Zefeng Li, Haoyu Wang, Tianwei Zhang, and Yang Liu. 2023. Jailbreaker: Automated Jailbreak Across Multiple Large Language Model Chatbots. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08715 (2023). · arXiv
- Dedre Gentner and Arthur B Markman. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American psychologist 52, 1 (1997), 45.
- Chip Huyen. 2022. Designing machine learning systems. " O'Reilly Media, Inc. ".
- Mark Liffiton, Brad Sheese, Jaromir Savelka, and Paul Denny. 2023. CodeHelp: Us- ing Large Language Models with Guardrails for Scalable Support in Programming Classes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06921 (2023). · arXiv
- Aditi Mishra, Utkarsh Soni, Anjana Arunkumar, Jinbin Huang, Bum Chul Kwon, and Chris Bryan. 2023. PromptAid: Prompt Exploration, Perturbation, Testing and Iteration using Visual Analytics for Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.01964 (2023). · arXiv
- Wing Ng, Ava Anjom, and Joanna M Drinane. 2022. Beyond Amazon: Social Justice and Ethical Considerations for Research Compensation. Psychotherapy Bulletin (2022), 17.
- Fábio Perez and Ian Ribeiro. 2022. Ignore Previous Prompt: Attack Techniques For Language Models. In NeurIPS ML Safety Workshop.
- Charvi Rastogi, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Nicholas King, and Saleema Amershi. 2023. Supporting Human-AI Collaboration in Auditing LLMs with LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09991 (2023). · arXiv
- Fobo Shi, Peijun Qing, Dong Yang, Nan Wang, Youbo Lei, Haonan Lu, and Xi- aodong Lin. 2023. Prompt Space Optimizing Few-shot Reasoning Success with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03799 (2023). · arXiv
- Sangho Suh, Bryan Min, Srishti Palani, and Haijun Xia. 2023. Sensecape: Enabling Multilevel Exploration and Sensemaking with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11483 (2023). · arXiv
- Tianxiang Sun, Yunfan Shao, Hong Qian, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. 2022. Black-box tuning for language-model-as-a-service. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 20841-20855.
- Yongchao Zhou, Andrei Ioan Muresanu, Ziwen Han, Keiran Paster, Silviu Pitis, Harris Chan, and Jimmy Ba. 2022. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01910 (2022). · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences
Shankar, S., Zamfirescu-Pereira, J. D., Hartmann, B., Parameswaran, A., & Arawjo, I. (2024) · Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3654777.3676450 · Cited by 151
Self-citationDirectGPT: A Direct Manipulation Interface to Interact with Large Language Models
Masson, D., Malacria, S., Casiez, G., & Vogel, D. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642462 · Cited by 183
AI for crop production – Where can large language models (LLMs) provide substantial value?
Kuśka, M. T., Wahabzada, M., & Paulus, S. (2024) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.108924 · Cited by 95
Screening articles for systematic reviews with ChatGPT
Syriani, E., David, I., & Kumar, G. (2024) · Journal of Computer Languages · doi:10.1016/j.cola.2024.101287 · Cited by 82
Generative AI for self-adaptive systems: State of the art and research roadmap
Li, J., Zhang, M., Li, N., Weyns, D., Jin, Z., & Tei, K. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems · doi:10.1145/3686803 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Arawjo, I., Swoopes, C., Vaithilingam, P., Wattenberg, M., & Glassman, E.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 1-18
- arXiv
- 2309.09128
- OpenAlex
- W4396832834
- Cited by
- 146
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 45 · 2025: 79 · 2024: 22
- FWCI
- 42.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2107391, 2040880, 1955699)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- prompt engineering, large language models, graphical user interface, text generation evaluation, model selection, LLM auditing, open source software, user study
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
