Comparing LLM and Fine-Tuned Model Performance on NVDRS Circumstance Extraction with Varying Prompt Complexity
Authors: Geoffrey Martin, Xuan Zhong Feng, Yifan Peng
Organizations: Department of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, USA · Systems Engineering, Cornell University, New York, USA
Abstract
Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and understanding the circumstances that precede it requires extracting structured information from death investigation narratives. Many of these circumstances require semantic inference beyond simple keyword matching. We develop a ``Complexity Score'' algorithm that analyzes coding manual structure to predict when detailed prompts with full coding guidelines improve over name-only prompts. We then construct a hybrid approach that selects prompt strategy per circumstance. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) against fine-tuned RoBERTa on 25 inferentially complex circumstances from the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS). We found that LLMs substantially outperform on low-prevalence circumstances where training data is insufficient. We further demonstrate that our framework generalizes across frontier LLMs, with GPT-5.2, Gemini 2.5 Pro and Llama-3 70B showing consistent performance patterns. These findings support a hybrid architecture where LLMs handle rare, inferentially complex circumstances while fine-tuned models handle common ones.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.
In this paper, we define the quantity of prompting complexity: for a fixed instruction-tuned language model, what is the shortest plausible prompt that makes deterministic decoding produce a target text? It is an LM-relative analogue of resource-bounded Kolmogorov complexity: the prompt is a program, the model interface is the interpreter, and information omitted from the prompt is supplied by the model's weights, training distribution, tokenizer, template, and decoding rule. Unlike classical Kolmogorov complexity, this measure is intentionally non-universal. In the finite-context setting it is computable by enumeration, but there is no model-independent invariance theorem; the same text may be cheap for one model and inaccessible or expensive for another. To keep the search space aligned with prompt engineering, we restrict programs to plausible human-readable texts rather than arbitrary token strings. We extend the exact definition to soft prompting complexity for approximate outputs, yielding a lossy notion of model-relative text compression and a formal target for prompt optimization. We also define prompting distance by comparing shortest generating prompts, and behavioral prompting complexity for reaching any output satisfying a specification. Based on these formulations, we define a research agenda for empirically studying which texts and behaviors are accessible from short plausible prompts under a fixed LM interface.
Police crash narratives contain information that may supplement structured crash databases, but manual review is labor-intensive and it remains unclear how well large language models (LLMs) reproduce official crash coding. This study benchmarked six frontier LLMs by comparing narrative-derived crash attribute codes with corresponding fields in the Arkansas fatal-crash database. The analysis linked 5,587 fatal-crash narratives with 5,889 structured crash records from Arkansas (2015-2025), yielding 4,194 matched crashes. Six LLMs were evaluated using an identical zero-shot prompt to code crash manner, non-motorist relation, intersection type, work-zone relation, roadway surface condition, and light condition. Performance was evaluated using agreement, macro-averaged F1 score, Cohen's kappa, coverage, selective agreement, and comparisons with always-majority, always-Unknown, and keyword-rule baselines. Repeated-measures analyses and a generalized estimating equations model assessed differences among models and attributes. GPT-5.5 High achieved the highest agreement among the evaluated LLMs, but the always-majority baseline produced higher raw agreement and the keyword-rule baseline achieved macro-averaged F1 score and Cohen's kappa comparable to the best-performing LLM. Agreement was highest for non-motorist relation and crash manner and lowest for light condition, roadway surface condition, and work-zone relation. Differences across crash attributes exceeded differences across models. These results provide a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based crash coding and show that deployment should be evaluated on an attribute-specific basis using transparent baselines and human review.
Sudhir Bharati, Rajendra K C Khatri, Sudip Bharati