LLM Prompting

Extracting structured procedural knowledge from unstructured business documents is a critical yet unresolved bottleneck in process automation. While prior work has focused on extracting linear action flows from instructional texts, such as recipes, it has insufficiently addressed the complex logical structures, including conditional branching and parallel execution, that are pervasive in real-world regulatory and administrative documents. Furthermore, existing benchmarks are limited by simplistic schemas and shallow logical dependencies, restricting progress toward logic-aware large language models.To bridge this Logic Gap, we introduce BREX, a carefully curated benchmark comprising 409 real-world business documents and 2,855 expert-annotated rules. Unlike prior datasets centered on narrow service scenarios, BREX spans over 30 vertical domains, covering scientific, industrial, administrative, and financial regulations. We further propose ExIde, a structure-aware reasoning framework that investigates five distinct prompting strategies, ranging from implicit semantic alignment to executable grounding via pseudo-code generation. This enables explicit modeling of rule dependencies and provides an out-of-the-box framework for different business customers without finetuning their own large language models. We benchmark ExIde using 13 state-of-the-art large language models. Our extensive evaluation reveals that executable grounding serves as a superior inductive bias, significantly outperforming standard prompts in rule extraction. In addition, reasoning-optimized models demonstrate a distinct advantage in tracing long-range and non-linear rule dependencies compared to standard instruction-tuned models.

Automatic prompt generation plays a crucial role in enabling general-purpose multi-agent systems to perform diverse tasks autonomously. Existing methods typically evaluate prompts based on their immediate task performance, overlooking the intrinsic qualities that determine their reliability. This outcome-centric view not only limits interpretability but also fails to account for the inherent stochasticity of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we bring attention to prompt stability-the consistency of model responses across repeated executions-as a key factor for building robust and effective prompt generation systems. To quantify this, we propose semantic stability as a criterion for assessing the response consistency of prompts. Based on the proposed metric, we developed the first stability-aware general-purpose prompt generation system that leverages stability feedback to iteratively enhance both prompt quality and system-level performance. Furthermore, we establish a logical chain between prompt stability and task success by analyzing the structural dependencies within our system, proving stability as a necessary condition for effective system-level execution. Empirical results across general and domain-specific tasks demonstrate that our stability-aware framework improves both accuracy and output consistency. By shifting the focus from one-off results to persistent reliability, our work offers a new perspective on prompt design and contributes practical tools for building more trustworthy general-purpose systems. The UI and source code for our system are publicly available at: https://xucheng63.github.io/MyDataPilot/.

While software requirements are often expressed in natural language, verifying the correctness of a program against such requirements is a hard and underexplored problem. Large language models (LLMs) are promising candidates for addressing this challenge, however our experience shows that they are ineffective in this task, often failing to detect even straightforward bugs. To address this gap, we introduce HoarePrompt, a novel approach that adapts fundamental ideas from program verification to natural language artifacts. Inspired from the strongest postcondition calculus, HoarePrompt employs a systematic, step-by-step process in which an LLM generates natural language descriptions of reachable program states at various code points. To manage loops, we propose few-shot-driven k-induction, an adaptation of the k-induction method widely used in model checking. Once program states are described, HoarePrompt leverages the LLM to assess whether the program, annotated with these state descriptions, conforms to the natural language requirements. For evaluating the quality of classifiers of program correctness with respect to natural language requirements, we constructed CoCoClaNeL, a challenging dataset of solutions to programming competition problems. Our experiments show that HoarePrompt improves the MCC by 61% compared to directly using Zero-shot-CoT prompts for correctness classification. Furthermore, HoarePrompt outperforms a classifier that assesses correctness via LLM-based test generation by an MCC increase of 106%. The inductive reasoning mechanism contributes a 26% boost to MCC, underscoring its effectiveness in managing loops.

Large Language Models (LLM) can solve any computational problem without an algorithm in a runtime independent of the computational complexity of that problem. Instead of specifying precisely how to solve problem instance using programming, we ask an LLM to solve the problem instance using prompting. Outputs are sampled from a distribution rather than generated procedurally. In this vision paper, we explore the challenges and opportunities of this new form of computation and observe that its capabilities and limits cannot be understood within the classic, rationalist framework of computation. Hence, we appeal to the software engineering (SE) community to develop the foundations and techniques required to analyze the properties of this "empirical computation" as it generates solutions to computational problems: How can we analyze and improve the correctness of LLMs solving a computational problem in the general, in the problem-specific, or in the instance-specific? What are the properties and fundamental limits of empirical computation? This paper aims to establish empirical computation as a field in SE that is timely and rich with interesting problems.

This is a book about large language models. As indicated by the title, it primarily focuses on foundational concepts rather than comprehensive coverage of all cutting-edge technologies. The book is structured into six main chapters, each exploring a key area: pre-training, generative models, prompting, alignment, inference, and reasoning. It is intended for college students, professionals, and practitioners in natural language processing and related fields, and can serve as a reference for anyone interested in large language models.

How diverse are the outputs of large language models when diversity is desired? We examine the diversity of responses of several language models to questions with multiple possible answers, comparing them with human responses. Our findings suggest that models' responses are highly concentrated, reflecting narrow, mainstream outputs, in comparison to humans, whose responses exhibit a much longer-tail. We examine three simple and practical ways to increase output diversity: 1) increasing generation randomness via temperature sampling; 2) prompting models to answer from diverse perspectives using a single prompt; 3) aggregating outputs from several models. We find that these interventions, especially when combined, can substantially increase output diversity, although single-model outputs generally remain less diverse than the human baseline. We discuss potential implications of these findings for future work in AI policy and governance that wishes to preserve cultural diversity, an essential building block of a democratic social fabric.

Large Language Models with chain-of-thought prompting, such as OpenAI-o1, have shown impressive capabilities in natural language inference tasks. However, Multi-hop Question Answering (MHQA) remains challenging for many existing models due to issues like hallucination, error propagation, and limited context length. To address these challenges and enhance LLMs' performance on MHQA, we propose the Self-Guiding prompting Finite State Machine (SG-FSM), designed to strengthen multi-hop reasoning abilities. Unlike traditional chain-of-thought methods, SG-FSM tackles MHQA by iteratively breaking down complex questions into sub-questions, correcting itself to improve accuracy. It processes one sub-question at a time, dynamically deciding the next step based on the current context and results, functioning much like an automaton. Experiments across various benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach, outperforming strong baselines on challenging datasets such as Musique. SG-FSM reduces hallucination, enabling recovery of the correct final answer despite intermediate errors. It also improves adherence to specified output formats, simplifying evaluation significantly.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making across diverse domains. Ensuring the generation of safe and reliable responses is critical for the effective deployment of LLM-based applications, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and finance. Most of these applications typically use carefully crafted prompts to guide response generation; however, the relationship between prompts and the reliability of LLM-generated responses is not yet fully understood. To address this gap, we propose a novel prompt-response concept model that explains the relationship between the amount of task-relevant information (informativeness) provided in the prompt and the LLM-generated response uncertainty by identifying four sources of response uncertainty: prompt underspecification, model quality, task variability, and semantic redundancy. We prove that response uncertainty decreases as prompt informativeness or model quality increases, mirroring the behavior of epistemic uncertainty in probabilistic models. Our experimental results on real-world datasets further validate our proposed model and corroborate the theoretical results.

A prompt is an instruction or description provided by the user to guide a generative language model toward outputs that meet application requirements. When these requirements change, existing prompts may need to be adapted and improved. Evaluating candidate prompts requires time and computational resources. We therefore study how to expand and refine an initial set of prompts under a limited evaluation budget through simulation optimization, aiming to maximize a pre-defined task score for a fixed language model. Specifically, we propose a two-stage framework. In the first stage, we expand the initial set of prompts into a finite candidate set, where each prompt is represented by a moderate-dimensional vector. In the subsequent stage of evaluation and selection, we construct a surrogate model of the score for moderate-dimensional vectors representing the prompts. We propose sequentially selecting prompts for evaluation using the constructed surrogate model. We prove the consistency of the sequential evaluation procedure in our framework. We further introduce a refinement procedure that uses the collected scores to search beyond the initial candidate set. We also conduct numerical experiments to demonstrate the advantages of our method over baseline prompt selection methods, with higher prompt scores, especially when the budget for calling language models to evaluate prompts is limited.

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.