Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Do prompt positions really matter?

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 2305.14493 v4 pith:V7GRUMZL submitted 2023-05-23 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords promptpositionmodelsfindingspositionspriorstudiestemplate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Prompt-based models have gathered a lot of attention from researchers due to their remarkable advancements in the fields of zero-shot and few-shot learning. Developing an effective prompt template plays a critical role. However, prior studies have mainly focused on prompt vocabulary searching or embedding initialization within a predefined template with the prompt position fixed. In this empirical study, we conduct the most comprehensive analysis to date of prompt position for diverse Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Our findings quantify the substantial impact prompt position has on model performance. We observe that the prompt positions used in prior studies are often sub-optimal, and this observation is consistent even in widely used instruction-tuned models. These findings suggest prompt position optimisation as a valuable research direction to augment prompt engineering methodologies and prompt position-aware instruction tuning as a potential way to build more robust models in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Evaluating the Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation to Adversarial Evidence in the Health Domain

    cs.IR 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Misleading health documents in RAG context sharply lower LLM accuracy, and heavily helpful-biased retrieval pools restore it.

Pith tools