Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Interactive Prompt Debugging with Sequence Salience

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.07498 v1 pith:LFF7P2AH submitted 2024-04-11 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HCcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.HCcs.LG
keywords saliencesequencedebuggingcomplexinteractivelongmethodspractitioners
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

We present Sequence Salience, a visual tool for interactive prompt debugging with input salience methods. Sequence Salience builds on widely used salience methods for text classification and single-token prediction, and extends this to a system tailored for debugging complex LLM prompts. Our system is well-suited for long texts, and expands on previous work by 1) providing controllable aggregation of token-level salience to the word, sentence, or paragraph level, making salience over long inputs tractable; and 2) supporting rapid iteration where practitioners can act on salience results, refine prompts, and run salience on the new output. We include case studies showing how Sequence Salience can help practitioners work with several complex prompting strategies, including few-shot, chain-of-thought, and constitutional principles. Sequence Salience is built on the Learning Interpretability Tool, an open-source platform for ML model visualizations, and code, notebooks, and tutorials are available at http://goo.gle/sequence-salience.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Table Understanding and (Multimodal) LLMs: A Cross-Domain Case Study on Scientific vs. Non-Scientific Data

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark, TableEval, with 3017 tables in five formats, shows LLMs are robust to table representation but perform worse on scientific tables, with the caveat that the domain gap is confounded by task difficulty.

  2. Toward Inclusive AI-Driven Development: Exploring Gender Differences in Code Generation Tool Interactions

    cs.SE 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    A registered-report style proposal for testing gender differences in how developers interact with AI code generation tools, with no results reported yet.

Pith tools