πŸ˜ƒ Basics
🧠 Advanced
Zero-Shot
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Emotion Prompting
🟒 Role Prompting
🟒 Re-reading (RE2)
🟒 Rephrase and Respond (RaR)
🟦 SimToM
β—† System 2 Attention (S2A)
Few-Shot
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Self-Ask
🟒 Self Generated In-Context Learning (SG-ICL)
🟒 Chain-of-Dictionary (CoD)
🟒 Cue-CoT
🟦 Chain of Knowledge (CoK)
β—† K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN)
β—†β—† Vote-K
β—†β—† Prompt Mining
Thought Generation
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Chain of Draft (CoD)
🟦 Contrastive Chain-of-Thought
🟦 Automatic Chain of Thought (Auto-CoT)
🟦 Tabular Chain-of-Thought (Tab-CoT)
🟦 Memory-of-Thought (MoT)
🟦 Active Prompting
🟦 Analogical Prompting
🟦 Complexity-Based Prompting
🟦 Step-Back Prompting
🟦 Thread of Thought (ThoT)
Ensembling
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Universal Self-Consistency
🟦 Mixture of Reasoning Experts (MoRE)
🟦 Max Mutual Information (MMI) Method
🟦 Prompt Paraphrasing
🟦 DiVeRSe (Diverse Verifier on Reasoning Step)
🟦 Universal Self-Adaptive Prompting (USP)
🟦 Consistency-based Self-adaptive Prompting (COSP)
🟦 Multi-Chain Reasoning (MCR)
Self-Criticism
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Self-Calibration
🟒 Chain of Density (CoD)
🟒 Chain-of-Verification (CoVe)
🟦 Self-Refine
🟦 Cumulative Reasoning
🟦 Reversing Chain-of-Thought (RCoT)
β—† Self-Verification
Decomposition
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Chain-of-Logic
🟦 Decomposed Prompting
🟦 Plan-and-Solve Prompting
🟦 Program of Thoughts
🟦 Tree of Thoughts
🟦 Chain of Code (CoC)
🟦 Duty-Distinct Chain-of-Thought (DDCoT)
β—† Faithful Chain-of-Thought
β—† Recursion of Thought
β—† Skeleton-of-Thought
πŸ”“ Prompt Hacking
🟒 Defensive Measures
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Filtering
🟒 Instruction Defense
🟒 Post-Prompting
🟒 Random Sequence Enclosure
🟒 Sandwich Defense
🟒 XML Tagging
🟒 Separate LLM Evaluation
🟒 Other Approaches
🟒 Offensive Measures
🟒 Introduction
🟒 Simple Instruction Attack
🟒 Context Ignoring Attack
🟒 Compound Instruction Attack
🟒 Special Case Attack
🟒 Few-Shot Attack
🟒 Refusal Suppression
🟒 Context Switching Attack
🟒 Obfuscation/Token Smuggling
🟒 Task Deflection Attack
🟒 Payload Splitting
🟒 Defined Dictionary Attack
🟒 Indirect Injection
🟒 Recursive Injection
🟒 Code Injection
🟒 Virtualization
🟒 Pretending
🟒 Alignment Hacking
🟒 Authorized User
🟒 DAN (Do Anything Now)
🟒 Bad Chain
πŸ”¨ Tooling
Prompt Engineering IDEs
🟒 Introduction
GPT-3 Playground
Dust
Soaked
Everyprompt
Prompt IDE
PromptTools
PromptSource
PromptChainer
Prompts.ai
Snorkel 🚧
Human Loop
Spellbook 🚧
Kolla Prompt 🚧
Lang Chain
OpenPrompt
OpenAI DALLE IDE
Dream Studio
Patience
Promptmetheus
PromptSandbox.io
The Forge AI
AnySolve
Conclusion
πŸ’ͺ Prompt Tuning🟒 Introduction

Introduction

🟒 This article is rated easy
Reading Time: 1 minute
Last updated on March 3, 2025

Sander Schulhoff

Takeaways
  • Have a basic understanding of what Prompt Tuning is

Prompt tuning is a technique for adapting pre-trained language models to downstream tasks without updating the model's core parameters. Instead of fine‑tuning all the weights, prompt tuning learns a small set of tunable parameters, called soft prompts, that are prepended or appended to the input. These soft prompts (continuous embeddings) are optimized via gradient descent so that, when combined with the (frozen) pre-trained model, they guide it to produce task-specific outputs.

By the end of this section, you will have an understanding of how Prompt Tuning works and how soft prompts can be used to enhance the performance and interpretability of your GenAI applications.

🟦 Interpretable Soft Prompts

🟦 Dynamic Prompting

🟦 Gradient-Free Prompt Tuning

🟦 Low-Rank Prompt Tuning (LoPT)

🟦 Multitask Prompt Tuning

🟦 Prefix-Tuning

🟦 Prompt-Tuning with Perturbation-Based Regularizer

🟦 Prompt Tuning with Soft Prompts

Sander Schulhoff

Sander Schulhoff is the Founder of Learn Prompting and an ML Researcher at the University of Maryland. He created the first open-source Prompt Engineering guide, reaching 3M+ people and teaching them to use tools like ChatGPT. Sander also led a team behind Prompt Report, the most comprehensive study of prompting ever done, co-authored with researchers from the University of Maryland, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Princeton, Stanford, and other leading institutions. This 76-page survey analyzed 1,500+ academic papers and covered 200+ prompting techniques.