Scribd
Upload
30 views5 pages

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
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
30 views5 pages

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
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
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