PACE: Improving Prompt with Actor-Critic Editing for Large Language Model
Authors: Yihong Dong, Kangcheng Luo, Xue Jiang, Zhi Jin, Ge Li
AI-generated Key Points
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.
- The paper introduces a method called Prompt with Actor-Critic Editing (PACE) to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) by automatically editing prompts.
- LLMs are affected by the quality of human-written prompts, and PACE addresses this issue by leveraging the actor-critic algorithm from reinforcement learning.
- PACE treats LLMs as both actors and critics, refining prompts based on feedback from both actors performing the prompt and critics criticizing the response.
- This process allows LLMs to align the prompt more effectively with a specific task by incorporating real responses and thinking from LLMs.
- Extensive experiments on 24 instruction induction tasks and 21 big-bench tasks demonstrate that PACE significantly improves the relative performance of medium/low-quality human-written prompts by up to 98%.
- PACE achieves comparable performance to high-quality prompts and exhibits notable efficacy in prompt generation.
- Overall, PACE offers an automated approach for enhancing LLM performance by refining prompts, reducing the need for manual effort in improving prompt quality.
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable potential across various tasks by conditioning on prompts. However, the quality of different human-written prompts leads to substantial discrepancies in LLMs' performance, and improving prompts usually necessitates considerable human effort and expertise. To this end, this paper proposes Prompt with Actor-Critic Editing (PACE) for LLMs to enable automatic prompt editing. Drawing inspiration from the actor-critic algorithm in reinforcement learning, PACE leverages LLMs as the dual roles of actors and critics, conceptualizing prompt as a type of policy. PACE refines prompt, taking into account the feedback from both actors performing prompt and critics criticizing response. This process helps LLMs better align prompt to a specific task, thanks to real responses and thinking from LLMs. We conduct extensive experiments on 24 instruction induction tasks and 21 big-bench tasks. Experimental results indicate that PACE elevates the relative performance of medium/low-quality human-written prompts by up to 98\%, which has comparable performance to high-quality human-written prompts. Moreover, PACE also exhibits notable efficacy for prompt generation.
Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant
You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.
⚠The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.
The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.
⚠The license of this specific paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing tools will be run using the paper metadata rather than the full article. However, it still does a good job, and you can also try our tools on papers with more open licenses.
Similar papers summarized with our AI tools
Navigate through even more similar papers through a
tree representationLook for similar papers (in beta version)
By clicking on the button above, our algorithm compares the title and abstract of this paper with all the papers of the same arXiv category that we have summarized, and finds the closest ones. You can rerun it from time to time: the results improve as our database grows.
Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.