REVIEW 3 cited by
APPL: A Prompt Programming Language for Harmonious Integration of Programs and Large Language Model Prompts
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
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable of handling diverse tasks with the aid of well-crafted prompts and integration of external tools, but as task complexity rises, the workflow involving LLMs can be complicated and thus challenging to implement and maintain. To address this challenge, we propose APPL, A Prompt Programming Language that acts as a bridge between computer programs and LLMs, allowing seamless embedding of prompts into Python functions, and vice versa. APPL provides an intuitive and Python-native syntax, an efficient parallelized runtime with asynchronous semantics, and a tracing module supporting effective failure diagnosis and replaying without extra costs. We demonstrate that APPL programs are intuitive, concise, and efficient through three representative scenarios: Chain-of-Thought with self-consistency (CoT-SC), ReAct tool use agent, and multi-agent chat. Experiments on three parallelizable workflows further show that APPL can effectively parallelize independent LLM calls, with a significant speedup ratio that almost matches the estimation.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Imprompt: A Language Framework for Prompt Programming
Prompt programs can be typed like programs and compiled in different ways; Imprompt formalizes two such compilers and tests them on tax-law reasoning and data-labeling tasks.
-
TypyBench: Evaluating LLM Type Inference for Untyped Python Repositories
LLMs achieve roughly 0.80 TypeSim similarity to human type annotations but far more mypy consistency errors than a coherent system should have, on a new 50-repo benchmark.
-
Formally Solving Answer-Construction Problems in Lean
ECP, an enumerate-conjecture-prove framework with Lean verification, improves answer-construction accuracy on ConstructiveBench and a PutnamBench subset, but its benchmark has a 17% major-error rate and its abstract r...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.