Scribd
Upload
0 views

prompt engineering

The document discusses advanced prompting techniques for large language models (LLMs), including Chain of Thought (CoT), Tree of Thought (ToT), and Self-Consistency Decoding, which enhance reasoning and response quality. It also covers zero-shot and few-shot learning, instruction tuning, and dynamic prompting strategies that improve interaction and output refinement. Additionally, it addresses challenges in multi-modal models and the design of robust prompting systems for specialized applications like legal and medical reports.

Uploaded by

pranay sai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0 views

prompt engineering

The document discusses advanced prompting techniques for large language models (LLMs), including Chain of Thought (CoT), Tree of Thought (ToT), and Self-Consistency Decoding, which enhance reasoning and response quality. It also covers zero-shot and few-shot learning, instruction tuning, and dynamic prompting strategies that improve interaction and output refinement. Additionally, it addresses challenges in multi-modal models and the design of robust prompting systems for specialized applications like legal and medical reports.

Uploaded by

pranay sai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

LLM Interview Series Part II: Advanced Prompting

Techniques and Structured Learning in LLMs


Sagar Sudhakara
March 2025

1 Core Prompting Techniques & Their Impact


1.1 Explain Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting and its impact on reasoning.
Definition: Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting is a technique where an LLM is encouraged to generate
intermediate reasoning steps before providing a final answer.
Impact:
• Enhances multi-step reasoning in math, logic, and commonsense tasks.
• Reduces hallucinations by forcing structured thinking.
• Outperforms direct-answer prompting in complex problem-solving.

1.2 How does Tree of Thought (ToT) prompting improve complex problem-
solving?
Concept: Tree of Thought (ToT) extends CoT by structuring multiple reasoning paths as a tree,
allowing the model to explore different solutions.
Benefits:
• Allows branching paths for parallel reasoning.
• Enables dynamic pruning of less promising solutions.
• Improves accuracy in decision-making tasks by considering alternatives.

1.3 What is Self-Consistency Decoding, and how does it improve response


quality?
Mechanism: Instead of generating a single response, self-consistency decoding generates multiple re-
sponses and selects the most frequent answer.
Advantages:
• Reduces inconsistent or random outputs.
• Provides a statistical consensus on the best response.
• Useful in scenarios requiring high reliability (e.g., medical AI).

1.4 How does ReAct (Reasoning + Acting) help an LLM interact with ex-
ternal tools?
Concept: ReAct combines thought processes (reasoning) with external actions, allowing an LLM
to dynamically interact with APIs, databases, or external search engines.
Applications:
• Enables LLMs to fetch live data instead of relying solely on static knowledge.
• Allows LLMs to call external APIs, improving real-time interaction.
• Enhances multi-turn conversations in chatbots.

1
1.5 What is Precognition prompting, and when would you use it?
Definition: Precognition prompting involves conditioning the LLM with partial future information
to guide it toward better decision-making.
Use Cases:
• Enhances long-term planning tasks like game AI or business forecasting.
• Reduces bias in stepwise generation by ensuring coherence.
• Improves results in tasks requiring foresight and strategic thinking.

2 Zero-shot, Few-shot, and Structured Prompting


2.1 Explain zero-shot, few-shot, and multi-shot learning in LLMs.

Feature Zero-shot Learning Few-shot Learning Multi-shot Learning


Example Count None 1-5 Examples Many Examples
Generalization High Moderate Low
Training Dependency No extra training Minimal fine-tuning Extensive fine-tuning
Use Cases Open-ended queries Domain adaptation Specialized applications

Table 1: Comparison of Zero-shot, Few-shot, and Multi-shot Learning

2.2 What are the best practices for constructing few-shot and zero-shot
prompts?
Best Practices:

• Use clear, structured examples in few-shot prompts.


• Ensure concise instructions with defined output formats.
• Leverage system messages to prime model behavior.

2.3 How does Zero-Shot Chain of Thought (Zero-Shot-CoT) compare to


Few-Shot CoT?
Differences:
• Zero-Shot CoT: The LLM generates a reasoning step before providing an answer without prior
examples.
• Few-Shot CoT: The LLM is given structured examples before reasoning.

Comparison Table:

Feature Zero-Shot CoT Few-Shot CoT


Example Requirement None 1+ Reasoning Examples
Performance on Complex Queries Moderate High
Generalization Ability Strong Limited to seen examples

Table 2: Comparison of Zero-Shot CoT vs. Few-Shot CoT

2
2.4 How does instruction tuning improve the effectiveness of LLM responses?
Concept: Instruction tuning fine-tunes an LLM with diverse task-specific instructions to enhance gen-
eralization.
Improvements:
• Reduces model reliance on prompt-specific structures.
• Increases accuracy in task-specific NLP applications.
• Allows cross-task generalization, reducing the need for frequent re-training.

2.5 How does Instruction Following differ from Few-Shot Prompting, and
when would you use each?

Feature Instruction Following Few-Shot Prompting


Training Dependency Trained on explicit instructions Requires in-context examples
Prompt Structure Uses direct task descriptions Uses prior examples to guide output
Adaptability More flexible to new tasks Limited to similar tasks
Use Case General task following Domain-specific fine-tuning

Table 3: Comparison of Instruction Following vs. Few-Shot Prompting

3 Prompt Chaining & Dynamic Adaptation


3.1 What are the trade-offs between Prompt Chaining vs. Tool-Use in com-
plex reasoning?

Feature Prompt Chaining Tool-Use


Approach Sequential prompts refine reasoning LLM queries external APIs or databases
Response Consistency High, as context builds iteratively May vary based on external data
Latency Moderate to high (multi-step) Can be slower (API call overhead)
Best For Logical reasoning, decision-making Live data retrieval, real-world grounding

Table 4: Comparison of Prompt Chaining vs. Tool-Use

3.2 How do dynamic prompts adapt to user input in a real-time chatbot


application?
Dynamic Prompting: A system where prompt structure adjusts in real time based on user inputs.
Techniques:
• Memory Augmentation: Retains conversation history for contextual adaptation.
• Response Personalization: Adjusts output based on past interactions.
• Intent Recognition: Classifies user input and dynamically selects relevant prompt templates.

3.3 How does Self-Refinement (Self-Critique) prompting improve factual


consistency?
Mechanism: Self-Refinement prompting asks the LLM to critique its own response and correct errors.
Benefits:
• Reduces hallucinations by enforcing fact verification.

3
• Encourages iterative improvements for complex tasks.
• Improves alignment with retrieval sources for grounded responses.

3.4 How do iterative prompting strategies help refine LLM outputs?


Iterative Prompting: A method where the model is repeatedly queried to refine its response.
Examples:
• Feedback-Driven Refinement: Prompting the model to critique and refine previous responses.

• Stepwise Enhancement: Breaking down complex tasks into smaller refinable steps.
• Contrastive Evaluation: Asking the model to compare and improve multiple generated outputs.

3.5 What techniques would you use to extract structured data from an LLM
response via prompting?
Techniques:

• JSON Schema Prompting: Instructing the LLM to output structured JSON data.
• Regular Expression-Based Formatting: Post-processing text responses to enforce structure.
• Few-Shot Structured Examples: Providing formatted examples for in-context learning.

4 Multi-Modal & Complex Reasoning Prompts


4.1 How would you design an LLM that asks clarifying questions before
answering ambiguous queries?
Design Considerations:
• Intent Classification: Detect when a query lacks sufficient information.

• Clarification Prompting: Ask for missing details before generating a response.


• Adaptive Responses: Adjust based on additional user input.

4.2 How does Stepwise Thought Decomposition improve accuracy in math-


ematical reasoning?
Concept: Stepwise Thought Decomposition (STD) forces the model to explicitly show intermediate
steps in calculations.
Impact:
• Reduces error propagation by verifying each step.
• Improves comprehension and transparency in reasoning.

• Ensures higher accuracy in multi-step problem solving.

4.3 What are the key challenges in prompting multi-modal models (e.g.,
GPT-4V, BLIP, Flamingo)?
Challenges:
• Modality Alignment: Ensuring image-text consistency in responses.

• Data Representation Issues: Handling unstructured image data alongside text.


• Inference Complexity: Increased processing demands for multi-modal understanding.

4
4.4 How does Multi-Stage Prompting improve long-context understanding
in LLMs?
Definition: Multi-stage prompting breaks down document processing into multiple prompt-driven steps.
Stages:
• Stage 1: Context Extraction – Identifying relevant sections.

• Stage 2: Hierarchical Summarization – Extracting key details.


• Stage 3: Final Synthesis – Generating a well-structured response.

4.5 How would you create a robust prompting system for AI-generated legal
or medical reports?
Key Considerations:

• Fact-Checking Mechanisms: Use retrieval-based verification for critical claims.


• Structured Response Templates: Enforce format compliance (e.g., medical case summaries).
• Domain-Specific Tuning: Fine-tune prompts for accuracy in legal or medical contexts.

You might also like