customer support ai teams

Abstract: Prompt optimization improves the performance of language-model systems on downstream tasks by refining their prompts. Classical methods evaluate prompts on task examples and use the resulting feedback to guide prompt revisions through reflection. However, when feedback selection does not account for the prompt's weaknesses, these revisions may improve performance on selected examples without yielding broader task improvements. To address this issue, we propose AdaGEPA, an adaptive feedback-allocation method that uses the prompt's performance and task structure to select examples for the next prompt revision. Our method replaces at most one example in each feedback minibatch to target an identified weakness while preserving the remaining feedback context. Across our main experiments on six downstream benchmarks, AdaGEPA achieves higher mean validation scores than non-adaptive feedback selection under matched rollout budgets. AdaGEPA also finds high-performing prompts earlier across several tasks. In the initial Schema-Guided Dialogue (SGD) study, its half-budget prompts outperform the non-adaptive baseline's full-budget prompts in joint goal accuracy on new dialogues from services seen and unseen during search. Overall, our findings highlight the potential of adaptive feedback allocation to improve both the effectiveness and rollout-budget efficiency of reflective prompt optimization.

Abstract: Uncertainty estimates tell us how unsure a model is, but not why. Without knowing which parts of an input influences a model's uncertainty, we cannot tell whether that uncertainty score depends on input features that are relevant for the task. We study this problem in randomset classifiers built using pretrained language models. These classifiers assign probability to individual answers and to groups of answers, producing lower and upper probabilities for each answer; The difference between these probabilities, called credal width, is used to represent epistemic uncertainty about an answer arising from limited training data. We propose XU-RS, a framework that attributes an answer's credal width to the input tokens (words or word pieces) supplied to a language model. XU-RS uses Expected Gradients (a standard feature attribution method) to estimate how input tokens contribute to credal width. The proposed framework is evaluated on a MedQA dataset using SmolLM3-3B and Llama-2-7B models, demonstrating that setting the embedding of a token ranked highly by XU-RS to zero (zero-masking) causes larger changes in credal width than zero-masking randomly selected tokens. In addition, we show that normalisation can cause other answer groups to influence an answer's width, reveal how token attribution can mask numerical errors, and provide diagnostic checks to verify whether a token ranked highly by XU-RS meaningfully explains model uncertainty.