Prompt optimization has often been framed as a discrete search problem to find high-performing and robust instructions for a large language model (LLM). However, the search result might not make it transparent why and where specific prompt changes lead to performance gains. This is in contrast to how humans are instructed for annotation tasks. Here, researchers carefully design annotation guidelines, leading to enhanced annotation consistency. Our paper aims at joining these two approaches and introduces iPOE, a novel interpretable prompt optimization strategy via explanations. We guide the prompt optimization process by automatically created guidelines from explanations of annotation decisions (either automatically generated or from humans). This set of guidelines is furthermore optimized by a series of operations, including removing, adding, shuffling, and merging. The resulting prompt includes guidelines that instruct the annotation, making the decision process of the LLM and the optimization transparent. It therefore supports also laypeople in prompt optimization. In our experiments on four datasets, we find that iPOE can improve over the evaluated baselines by up to 39% and LLM explanations can replace human explanations in the proposed method. Moreover, our interpretability validation study demonstrates that humans and LLMs substantially agree on which guidelines contribute to their annotations, achieving a Cohen’s kappa score between annotators and LLMs of up to 0.68, 0.80, and 0.95 for the emotion classification, medical fact-checking, and hate speech detection tasks respectively.

The output of large language models (LLMs) is unstable, due both to non-determinism of the decoding process as well as to prompt brittleness. While the intrinsic non-determinism of LLM generation may mimic existing uncertainty in human annotations through distributional shifts in outputs, it is largely assumed, yet unexplored, that the prompt brittleness effect is unique to LLMs. This raises the question: do human annotators show similar sensitivity to prompt changes? If so, should prompt brittleness in LLMs be considered problematic? One may alternatively hypothesize that prompt brittleness correctly reflects human annotation variances. To fill this research gap, we systematically compare the effects of prompt modifications on LLMs and identical instruction modifications for human annotators, focusing on the question of whether humans are similarly sensitive to prompt perturbations. To study this, we prompt both humans and LLMs for a set of text classification tasks conditioned on prompt variations. Our findings indicate that both humans and LLMs exhibit increased brittleness in response to specific types of prompt modifications, particularly those involving the substitution of alternative label sets or label formats. However, the distribution of human judgments is less affected by typographical errors and reversed label order than that of LLMs.

Prompt engineering has made significant contributions to the era of large language models, yet its effectiveness depends on the skills of a prompt author. This paper introduces iPrOp, a novel interactive prompt optimization approach, to bridge manual prompt engineering and automatic prompt optimization while offering users the flexibility to assess evolving prompts. We aim to provide users with task-specific guidance to enhance human engagement in the optimization process, which is structured through prompt variations, informative instances, predictions generated by large language models along with their corresponding explanations, and relevant performance metrics. This approach empowers users to choose and further refine the prompts based on their individual preferences and needs. It can not only assist non-technical domain experts in generating optimal prompts tailored to their specific tasks or domains, but also enable to study the intrinsic parameters that influence the performance of prompt optimization. The evaluation shows that our approach has the capability to generate improved prompts, leading to enhanced task performance.

Demographics and cultural background of annotators influence the labels they assign in text annotation – for instance, an elderly woman might find it offensive to read a message addressed to a “bro”, but a male teenager might find it appropriate. It is therefore important to acknowledge label variations to not under-represent members of a society. Two research directions developed out of this observation in the context of using large language models (LLM) for data annotations, namely (1) studying biases and inherent knowledge of LLMs and (2) injecting diversity in the output by manipulating the prompt with demographic information. We combine these two strands of research and ask the question to which demographics an LLM resorts to when no demographics is given. To answer this question, we evaluate which attributes of human annotators LLMs inherently mimic. Furthermore, we compare non-demographic conditioned prompts and placebo-conditioned prompts (e.g., “you are an annotator who lives in house number 5”) to demographics-conditioned prompts (“You are a 45 year old man and an expert on politeness annotation. How do you rate instance”). We study these questions for politeness and offensiveness annotations on the POPQUORN data set, a corpus created in a controlled manner to investigate human label variations based on demographics which has not been used for LLM-based analyses so far. We observe notable influences related to gender, race, and age in demographic prompting, which contrasts with previous studies that found no such effects.