Papers › Evaluating the Robustness of Discrete Prompts
Evaluating the Robustness of Discrete Prompts
Yoichi Ishibashi, Danushka Bollegala, Katsuhito Sudoh, Satoshi Nakamura
Discrete prompts have been used for fine-tuning Pre-trained Language Models for diverse NLP tasks. In particular, automatic methods that generate discrete prompts from a small set of training instances have reported superior performance. However, a closer look at the learnt prompts reveals that they contain noisy and counter-intuitive lexical constructs that would not be encountered in manually-written prompts. This raises an important yet understudied question regarding the robustness of automatically learnt discrete prompts when used in downstream tasks. To address this question, we conduct a systematic study of the robustness of discrete prompts by applying carefully designed perturbations into an application using AutoPrompt and then measure their performance in two Natural Language Inference (NLI) datasets. Our experimental results show that although the discrete prompt-based method remains relatively robust against perturbations to NLI inputs, they are highly sensitive to other types of perturbations such as shuffling and deletion of prompt tokens. Moreover, they generalize poorly across different NLI datasets. We hope our findings will inspire future work on robust discrete prompt learning.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections