LLM Prompting

Research shows that dialogue, the interactive process through which participants articulate their thinking, plays a central role in constructing shared understanding, coordinating action, and shaping learning outcomes in teams. Analysing dialogue content has been central to advancing team learning theory and informing the design of computer-supported collaborative learning environments, yet this progress has depended on labour-intensive qualitative coding. LLMs offer new possibilities for automating and enhancing the dialogue layer within emerging multimodal learning analytics approaches, with recent studies showing that they can approximate human coding through few-shot prompting. However, prior work has focused on replicating human coding accuracy for research purposes, rather than addressing a more educationally consequential question: how can we design prompts that allow an LLM to label team dialogue accurately and fast enough to be useful in real settings, such as in-person healthcare simulations, where results must be returned quickly and computational cost and sustainability also matter? This paper investigates how prompt design and batching strategies can be optimised to balance coding accuracy, processing time, and environmental impact in team-based healthcare simulation debriefing. Using a dataset of 11,647 utterances coded across 6 dialogue constructs, we compared 4 prompt designs across varying batch sizes, evaluating coding performance, processing time, and energy consumption, as well as the trade-offs between these metrics. Results indicate that increasing batch size improves speed and reduces energy use, but negatively impacts coding performance. Beyond demonstrating the feasibility of LLM-based qualitative analysis, this study offers practical guidance for scaling dialogue analytics in contexts where timeliness, privacy, and sustainability are critical.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in automated software engineering, yet their guarantee of correctness is frequently undermined by erroneous or hallucinated code. To enforce model honesty, formal verification requires LLMs to synthesize implementation logic alongside formal specifications that are subsequently proven correct by a mathematical verifier. However, the transition from informal natural language to precise formal specification remains an arduous task. Our work addresses this by providing the NaturalLanguage2VerifiedCode (NL2VC)-60 dataset: a collection of 60 complex algorithmic problems. We evaluate 11 randomly selected problem sets across seven open-weight LLMs using a tiered prompting strategy: contextless prompts, signature prompts providing structural anchors, and self-healing prompts utilizing iterative feedback from the Dafny verifier. To address vacuous verification, where models satisfy verifiers with trivial specifications, we integrate the uDebug platform to ensure functional validation. Our results show that while contextless prompting leads to near-universal failure, structural signatures and iterative self-healing facilitate a dramatic performance turnaround. Specifically, Gemma 4-31B achieved a 90.91% verification success rate, while GPT-OSS 120B rose from zero to 81.82% success with signature-guided feedback. These findings indicate that formal verification is now attainable for open-weight LLMs, which serve as effective apprentices for synthesizing complex annotations and facilitating high-assurance software development.

Large Language Models (LLMs) can reason well, yet often miss decisive evidence when it is buried in long, noisy contexts. We introduce HiLight, an Evidence Emphasis framework that decouples evidence selection from reasoning for frozen LLM solvers. HiLight avoids compressing or rewriting the input, which can discard or distort evidence, by training a lightweight Emphasis Actor to insert minimal highlight tags around pivotal spans in the unaltered context. A frozen Solver then performs downstream reasoning on the emphasized input. We cast highlighting as a weakly supervised decision-making problem and optimize the Actor with reinforcement learning using only the Solver's task reward, requiring no evidence labels and no access to or modification of the Solver. Across sequential recommendation and long-context question answering, HiLight consistently improves performance over strong prompt-based and automated prompt-optimization baselines. The learned emphasis policy transfers zero-shot to both smaller and larger unseen Solver families, including an API-based Solver, suggesting that the Actor captures genuine, reusable evidence structure rather than overfitting to a single backbone.

Due to the textual and repetitive nature of many Requirements Engineering (RE) artefacts, Large Language Models (LLMs) have proven useful to automate their generation and processing. In this paper, we discuss a possible approach for automating the Goal-Oriented Requirements Engineering (GORE) process by extracting functional goals from software documentation through three phases: actor identification, high and low-level goal extraction. To implement these functionalities, we propose a chain of LLMs fed with engineered prompts. We experimented with different variants of in-context learning and measured the similarities between input data and in-context examples to better investigate their impact. Another key element is the generation-critic mechanism, implemented as a feedback loop involving two LLMs. Although the pipeline achieved 61% accuracy in low-level goal identification, the final stage, these results indicate the approach is best suited as a tool to accelerate manual extraction rather than as a full replacement. The feedback-loop mechanism with Zero-shot outperformed stand-alone Few-shot, with an ablation study suggesting that performance slightly degrades without the feedback cycle. However, we reported that the combination of the feedback mechanism with Few-shot does not deliver any advantage, possibly suggesting that the primary performance ceiling is the prompting strategy applied to the 'critic' LLM. Together with the refinement of both the quantity and quality of the Shot examples, future research will integrate Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting to improve accuracy.

This study examines how large language model rewriting alters the style and narrative texture of personal narratives. It analyzes 300 personal narratives rewritten by three frontier LLMs under three prompt conditions: generic improvement, rewrite-only, and voice-preserving revision. Change is measured across 13 linguistic markers drawn from computational stylistics, including function words, vocabulary diversity, word length, punctuation, contractions, first-person pronouns, and emotion words. Across models and prompt conditions, LLM rewriting produces a consistent pattern of stylistic normalization. Function words, contractions, and first-person pronouns decrease, while vocabulary diversity, word length, and punctuation elaboration increase. These shifts occur whether the prompt asks the model to "improve" the text or simply to "rewrite" it. Voice-preserving prompts reduce the magnitude of the changes but do not eliminate their direction. Stylometric analysis shows that rewritten texts converge in feature space and become harder to match back to their source texts. Additional narrative markers indicate a shift from embedded to distanced narration, and from explicit causal reasoning to compressed abstraction. The findings suggest that contemporary LLMs exert a directional pull toward a more polished, less situated register. This has consequences for digital humanities and computational text analysis, where features such as function words, pronouns, contractions, and punctuation often serve as evidence for style, voice, authorship, and corpus integrity. LLM revision should therefore be understood not merely as surface-level editing, but as a consequential form of textual mediation.

One of the most common complaints about large language models (LLMs) is their prompt sensitivity -- that is, the fact that their ability to perform a task or provide a correct answer to a question can depend unpredictably on the way the question is posed. We investigate this variation by comparing two very different but commonly-used styles of prompting: instruction-based prompts, which describe the task in natural language, and example-based prompts, which provide in-context few-shot demonstration pairs to illustrate the task. We find that, despite large variation in performance as a function of the prompt, the model engages some common underlying mechanisms across different prompts of a task. Specifically, we identify task-specific attention heads whose outputs literally describe the task -- which we dub lexical task heads -- and show that these heads are shared across prompting styles and trigger subsequent answer production. We further find that behavioral variation between prompts can be explained by the degree to which these heads are activated, and that failures are at least sometimes due to competing task representations that dilute the signal of the target task. Our results together present an increasingly clear picture of how LLMs' internal representations can explain behavior that otherwise seems idiosyncratic to users and developers.

Social media platforms have become primary channels for health information in the Global South. Using gomutra (cow urine) discourse on YouTube in India as a case study, we present a post-facto Large Language Model (LLM)-assisted discourse analysis of 30 multilingual transcripts showing that promotional content blends sacred traditional language with pseudo-scientific claims in ways that sophisticated debunking content itself mirrors, creating a rhetorical register that LLMs, trained predominantly on Western corpora, are systematically ill-equipped to analyse. Varying prompt tone across three LLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro, DeepSeek-V3.1), we find that culturally embedded health misinformation does not look like ordinary misinformation, and this cultural obfuscation extends to gendered rhetoric and prompt design, compounding analytical unreliability. Our findings argue that cultural competency in LLM-assisted discourse analysis cannot be retrofitted through prompt engineering alone.

Feature discovery from complex unstructured data is fundamentally a reasoning problem: it requires identifying abstractions that are predictive of a target outcome while avoiding leakage, proxies, and post-outcome signals. With the introduction of ever-improving Large Language Models (LLMs), our method provides a structured method for addressing this challenge. LLMs are well suited for this task by being able to process large amounts of information, but unconstrained feature generation can lead to weak features. In this work, we study reasoning control in LLMs by inducing cognitive behaviors for improving feature discovery. We introduce CoFEE (Cognitive Feature Engineering Engine), a reasoning control framework that enforces cognitive behaviors in how the LLM reasons during feature discovery. From a machine learning perspective, these cognitive behaviors act as structured inductive biases over the space of candidate features generated by the model. These behaviors have been exploited with success in ML models, and include backward chaining from outcomes, subgoal decomposition, verification against observability and leakage criteria, and explicit backtracking of rejected reasoning paths. In a controlled comparison, we show that enforcing cognitive behaviors yields features with higher empirical predictability than those under unconstrained vanilla LLM prompts. CoFEE achieves an average Success Rate Score that is 15.2% higher than the vanilla approach, while generating 29% fewer features and reducing costs by 53.3%. Using held-out feature evaluation, we assess whether cognitively induced features generalize beyond the data used for discovery. Our results indicate that, in our evaluated setting, reasoning control is associated with improvements in quality and efficiency of LLM-based feature discovery.

Multi-table entity matching (MEM) addresses the limitations of dual-table approaches by enabling simultaneous identification of equivalent entities across multiple data sources without unique identifiers. However, existing methods relying on pre-trained language models struggle to handle semantic inconsistencies caused by numerical attribute variations. Inspired by the powerful language understanding capabilities of large language models (LLMs), we propose a novel LLM-based framework for multi-table entity matching, termed LLM4MEM. Specifically, we first propose a multi-style prompt-enhanced LLM attribute coordination module to address semantic inconsistencies. Then, to alleviate the matching efficiency problem caused by the surge in the number of entities brought by multiple data sources, we develop a transitive consensus embedding matching module to tackle entity embedding and pre-matching issues. Finally, to address the issue of noisy entities during the matching process, we introduce a density-aware pruning module to optimize the quality of multi-table entity matching. We conducted extensive experiments on 6 MEM datasets, and the results show that our model improves by an average of 5.1% in F1 compared with the baseline model. Our code is available at https://github.com/Ymeki/LLM4MEM.

Tip-of-the-Tongue (ToT) retrieval benchmarks have largely focused on English, limiting their applicability to multilingual information access. In this work, we construct multilingual ToT test collections for Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and English, using an LLM-based query simulation framework. We systematically study how prompt language and source document language affect the fidelity of simulated ToT queries, validating synthetic queries through system rank correlation against real user queries. Our results show that effective ToT simulation requires language-aware design choices: non-English language sources are generally important, while English Wikipedia can be beneficial when non-English sources provide insufficient information for query generation. Based on these findings, we release four ToT test collections with 5,000 queries per language across multiple domains. This work provides the first large-scale multilingual ToT benchmark and offers practical guidance for constructing realistic ToT datasets beyond English.

The formal verification of operating system kernels requires precise specifications that capture the intended behavior of system calls. Writing these specifications manually demands deep domain expertise, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) to automate the process. However, in OSV-Bench, a benchmark of 245 specification generation tasks derived from the Hyperkernel OS kernel, the best reported Pass@1 is 55.10%. We propose a domain knowledge prompting method (BODHI), which augments the standard few-shot prompt with a structured C-to-Python translation guide covering 15 categories of domain-specific translation patterns. Inspired by Structured Chain-of-Thought (SCoT) prompting, the guide organizes translation by separation of concerns, addressing pre-condition extraction and post-condition generation as distinct categories. Evaluated on nine models from six providers (Anthropic, Mistral, Amazon, DeepSeek, Meta, Alibaba), covering dense, mixture-of-experts and reasoning architectures, BODHI improves every model tested, with gains ranging from +11% to +32%. The best configuration (Claude Opus 4.6 + BODHI) reaches 96.73% Pass@1. BODHI reduces both syntax and semantic errors, with the strongest effect on models that have sufficient instruction-following capability to utilize structured reference material. These results demonstrate that domain knowledge injection is a model-agnostic technique that substantially bridges the gap between general-purpose code generation and formal specification synthesis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare, yet their communicative alignment with clinical standards remains insufficiently quantified. We conduct a multidimensional evaluation of general-purpose and domain-specialized LLMs across structured medical explanations and real-world physician-patient interactions, analyzing semantic fidelity, readability, and affective resonance. Baseline models amplify affective polarity relative to physicians (Very Negative: 43.14-45.10% vs. 37.25%) and, in larger architectures such as GPT-5 and Claude, produce substantially higher linguistic complexity (FKGL up to 16.91-17.60 vs. 11.47-12.50 in physician-authored responses). Empathy-oriented prompting reduces extreme negativity and lowers grade-level complexity (up to -6.87 FKGL points for GPT-5) but does not significantly increase semantic fidelity. Collaborative rewriting yields the strongest overall alignment. Rephrase configurations achieve the highest semantic similarity to physician answers (up to mean = 0.93) while consistently improving readability and reducing affective extremity. Dual stakeholder evaluation shows that no model surpasses physicians on epistemic criteria, whereas patients consistently prefer rewritten variants for clarity and emotional tone. These findings suggest that LLMs function most effectively as collaborative communication enhancers rather than replacements for clinical expertise.

Automatic Bloom's taxonomy classification of assessment questions can substantially reduce instructor workload, but labeling is subjective and teacher-dependent. Prior machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) approaches reported strong within-dataset results, yet were rarely evaluated in cross-dataset settings, leaving real-world generalizability unclear; meanwhile, LLM effectiveness for Bloom question classification has not been systematically studied. We evaluated the cross-dataset generalization of existing ML/DL methods and assessed LLMs with multiple prompting strategies on five datasets; the best prompting strategy combined in-context examples with course-specific action verbs. Supervised ML/DL models degraded substantially on unseen datasets, whereas LLMs were more stable, suggesting a robust alternative across diverse educational contexts. Based on the best prompting strategy, we also presented a lightweight UI that supports instructors in automatically classifying large question banks; a usability study indicated low workload and high usability.

Accurate extraction of structured information from Safety Data Sheets (SDS) remains challenging in industrial safety due to heterogeneous document formats and the limitations of traditional rule-based methods. This study benchmarks state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated SDS data extraction, comparing text-based and multimodal processing pipelines. We systematically evaluate four models: Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Llama 3.1-70B, across three prompting strategies: zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought. The evaluation framework assessed accuracy, latency, and cost across more than 50,000 extracted data fields. Results show that text-based extraction consistently outperforms multimodal processing across all metrics. Gemini 1.5 Pro combined with a Chain-of-Thought prompt achieved the highest accuracy (84%), outperforming GPT-4o (81%) and Claude 3.7 Sonnet (79%). However, no model surpassed the 90% accuracy threshold commonly required for reliable real-world deployment. These findings indicate that general-purpose LLMs are not yet robust enough for unsupervised industrial use, though performance suggests strong potential with task-specific fine-tuning. Future research should focus on domain-adapted training, model calibration, and the integration of Human-in-the-Loop verification to ensure safety-critical reliability.

An earlier paper (Hong, Potteiger, and Zapata 2026) established that an unoptimized GPT 4.1 prompt predicts fan-reported experience ratings within one point 67% of the time from open-ended survey text. This paper tests the relative impact of prompt design and model selection on that performance. We compared four configurations on approximately 10,000 post-game surveys from five MLB teams: the original baseline prompt and a moderately customized version, crossed with three GPT models (4.1, 4.1-mini, 5.2). Prompt customization added roughly two percentage points of within +/-1 agreement on GPT 4.1 (from 67% to 69%). Both model swaps from that best configuration degraded performance: GPT 5.2 returned to the baseline, and GPT 4.1-mini fell six percentage points below it. Both levers combined were dwarfed by the input itself: across capable configurations, accuracy varied more than an order of magnitude more by the linguistic character of the text than by the choice of prompt or model. The ceiling has two parts. One is a bias in how the model reads text, which prompt design can correct. The other is a difference between what fans write about and what they actually decide, which no engineering can close because the missing information is not in the text. Prompt customization moved the first part; model selection moved neither reliably. The result is not that "prompt engineering helps a little" but that prompt engineering helps in a specific and predictable way, on the part of the ceiling it can reach.

We present a systematic empirical study of prompt engineering for formal mathematical reasoning in the context of the SAIR Equational Theories Stage 1 competition. The task requires deciding whether one equational law implies another over all magmas -- a problem that is undecidable in general but decidable for FALSE via finite model search. Over five weeks, we designed, tested, and analyzed more than 40 prompt variants, ranging from 0 to 4,878 bytes, across four evaluation splits and three language models (gpt-oss-120b, Llama 3.3 70B, Gemma 4 31B). Our central finding is a single-prompt ceiling: despite substantial engineering effort, balanced hard accuracy plateaus in an empirical saturation region of approximately 60--79% for gpt-oss-120b, compared to a 59.75% no-cheatsheet baseline. We identify three mechanisms underlying this ceiling: (1) the mathematical undecidability of the TRUE case limits what any finite prompt can encode; (2) complex rule systems decrease performance on weaker models (Llama 3.3 70B collapses to 0% TRUE recall with prompts exceeding 2KB); and (3) prompt ordering effects interact with model attention in fragile, non-monotonic ways. Our best submission (AN45c, 2,252 bytes) achieves 79.25% accuracy on hard3 (n=400; 95% CI: [75.0%, 82.9%]), with TRUE recall of 95.9% and FALSE recall of 63.4%, representing a +19.5 percentage-point improvement over the no-cheatsheet baseline (59.75%). We release all prompt variants, evaluation scripts, and results at https://github.com/israelcazares/sair-prompt-engineering

Prompt sensitivity, which refers to how strongly the output of a large language model (LLM) depends on the exact wording of its input prompt, raises concerns among users about the LLM's stability and reliability. In this work, we consider LLMs as multivariate functions and perform a first-order Taylor expansion, thereby analyzing the relationship between meaning-preserving prompts, their gradients, and the log probabilities of the model's next token. We derive an upper bound on the difference between log probabilities using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. We show that LLMs do not internally cluster similar inputs like smaller neural networks do, but instead disperse them. This dispersing behavior leads to an excessively high upper bound on the difference of log probabilities between two meaning-preserving prompts, making it difficult to effectively reduce to 0. In our analysis, we also show which types of meaning-preserving prompt variants are more likely to introduce prompt sensitivity risks in LLMs. In addition, we demonstrate that the upper bound is strongly correlated with an existing prompt sensitivity metric, PromptSensiScore. Moreover, by analyzing the logit variance, we find that prompt templates typically exert a greater influence on logits than the questions themselves. Overall, our results provide a general interpretation for why current LLMs can be highly sensitive to prompts with the same meaning, offering crucial evidence for understanding the prompt sensitivity of LLMs. Code for experiments is available at https://github.com/ku-nlp/Understanding_the_Prompt_Sensitivity.

Background: The potential of large language models (LLMs) to automate and support pharmacoepidemiologic study design is an emerging area of interest, yet their reliability remains insufficiently characterized. General-purpose LLMs often display inaccuracies, while the comparative performance of specialized biomedical LLMs in this domain remains unknown. Methods: This study evaluated general-purpose LLMs (GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1) versus biomedically fine-tuned LLMs (QuantFactory/Bio-Medical-Llama-3-8B-GGUF and Irathernotsay/qwen2-1.5B-medical_qa-Finetune) using 46 protocols (2018-2024) from the HMA-EMA Catalogue and Sentinel System. Performance was assessed across relevance, logic of justification, and ontology-code agreement across multiple coding systems using Least-to-Most (LTM) and Active Prompting strategies. Results: GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 paired with LTM prompting achieved the highest relevance and logic of justification scores, with GPT-4o-LTM reaching a median relevance score of 4 in 8 of 9 questions for HMA-EMA protocols. Biomedical LLMs showed lower relevance overall and frequently generated insufficient justification. All LLMs demonstrated limited proficiency in ontology-code mapping, although LTM provided the most consistent improvements in reasoning stability. Conclusion: Off-the-shelf general-purpose LLMs currently offer superior support for pharmacoepidemiologic design compared to biomedical LLMs. Prompt strategy strongly influenced LLM performance.

We introduce the Semantic Density Effect (SDE): the empirical finding that prompts carrying higher semantic information per token consistently produce more accurate, focused, and less hallucinated outputs across all major LLM families. SDE is defined as the ratio of semantically loaded tokens to total prompt tokens, adjusted for redundancy and concreteness. Unlike prior prompt optimization techniques that add tokens (Chain of Thought), duplicate the prompt (Prompt Repetition), or reorder components (Instruction Placement Effect), SDE improves performance by removing or replacing low-information tokens while preserving or sharpening the semantic signal. Evaluated across five frontier models and seven benchmarks, ultra-dense prompts (SDE > 0.80) outperform diluted counterparts by an average of +8.4 percentage points with 0 additional tokens and 0 latency overhead. Combined with Instruction Placement Effect (IPE), the gain reaches +11.7 percentage points

Distractor generation (DG) remains a labor-intensive task that still significantly depends on domain experts. The task focuses on generating plausible yet incorrect options, known as distractors, for multiple-choice questions. A reliable distractor must be contextually relevant to the question and able to mislead examinees through implicit reasoning when identifying the correct answer. While a recent method integrates fine-tuning pre-trained encoder-decoder models with contrastive learning to generate semantically relevant distractors for a given question-answer, it often fails to capture the underlying reasoning process that experts utilize when selecting distractors in benchmarks. In this paper, we explore large language models (LLMs) reasoning for DG through in-context learning with unsupervised semantic retrieval for selecting few-shot examples. We design a rationale-augmented DG framework that jointly generates distractors and their rationales for a given question-answer. Extensive experiments on six benchmarks, with varying average distractor lengths and domains, demonstrate that prompting LLMs with few-shot examples substantially improves the performance compared to recent DG models. It outperforms recent approaches and achieves state-of-the-art results in generating reasoned distractors that align with human-labeled benchmarks.

Translation-based prompting is widely used in multilingual LLMs, yet its effectiveness varies across languages and tasks. We evaluate prompting strategies across ten languages of different resource levels and four benchmarks. Our analysis shows that no single strategy is universally optimal. Translation strongly benefits low-resource languages even when translation quality is imperfect, high-resource languages gain little, and prompt-based self-routing underperforms explicit translation. Motivated by these findings, we formulate prompting strategy selection as a learned decision problem and introduce lightweight classifiers that predict whether native or translation-based prompting is optimal for each instance. The classifiers achieve statistically significant improvements over fixed strategies across four benchmarks and generalize to unseen task formats not observed during training. Further analysis reveals that language resource level, rather than translation quality alone, determines when translation is beneficial.

Prompt-induced cognitive biases are changes in a general-purpose AI (GPAI) system's decisions caused solely by biased wording in the input (e.g., framing, anchors), not task logic. In software engineering (SE) decision support (where problem statements and requirements are natural language) small phrasing shifts (e.g., popularity hints or outcome reveals) can push GPAI models toward suboptimal decisions. We study this with PROBE-SWE, a dynamic benchmark for SE that pairs biased and unbiased versions of the same SE dilemmas, controls for logic and difficulty, and targets eight SE-relevant biases (anchoring, availability, bandwagon, confirmation, framing, hindsight, hyperbolic discounting, overconfidence). We ask whether prompt engineering mitigates bias sensitivity in practice, focusing on actionable techniques that practitioners can apply off-the-shelf in real environments. Testing common strategies (e.g., chain-of-thought, self-debiasing) on cost-effective GPAI systems, we find no statistically significant reductions in bias sensitivity on a per-bias basis. We then adopt a Prolog-style view of the reasoning process: solving SE dilemmas requires making explicit any background axioms and inference assumptions (i.e., SE best practices) that are usually implicit in the prompt. So, we hypothesize that bias-inducing features short-circuit assumption elicitation, pushing GPAI models toward biased shortcuts. Building on this, we introduce an end-to-end method that elicits best practices and injects axiomatic reasoning cues into the prompt before answering, reducing overall bias sensitivity by 51% on average (p < .001). Finally, we report a thematic analysis that surfaces linguistic patterns associated with heightened bias sensitivity, clarifying when GPAI use is less advisable for SE decision support and where to focus future countermeasures.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to curate and rank human-created content, yet the nature and structure of their biases in these tasks remains poorly understood: which biases are robust across providers and platforms, and which can be mitigated through prompt design. We present a controlled simulation study mapping content selection biases across three major LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) on real social media datasets from Twitter/X, Bluesky, and Reddit, using six prompting strategies (general, popular, engaging, informative, controversial, neutral). Through 540,000 simulated top-10 selections from pools of 100 posts across 54 experimental conditions, we find that biases differ substantially in how structural and how prompt-sensitive they are. Polarization is amplified across all configurations, toxicity handling shows a strong inversion between engagement- and information-focused prompts, and sentiment biases are predominantly negative. Provider comparisons reveal distinct trade-offs: GPT-4o Mini shows the most consistent behavior across prompts; Claude and Gemini exhibit high adaptivity in toxicity handling; Gemini shows the strongest negative sentiment preference. On Twitter/X, where author demographics can be inferred from profile bios, political leaning bias is the clearest demographic signal: left-leaning authors are systematically over-represented despite right-leaning authors forming the pool plurality in the dataset, and this pattern largely persists across prompts.

Constrained decoding is widely used to make large language models produce structured outputs that satisfy schemas such as JSON. Existing work mainly treats schemas as structural constraints, overlooking that schema-key tokens also enter the autoregressive context and may guide generation. To the best of our knowledge, we present the first systematic study of schema keys as an implicit instruction channel under constrained decoding. We formulate structured generation as a multi-channel instruction problem, where task signals can be placed in prompts, schema keys, or both. We further provide a projection-aware analysis that gives a sufficient condition under which an unconstrained expected-score advantage of an instructional key is preserved after grammar projection. Experiments on GSM8K and Math500 across seven language models show that changing only schema-key wording can substantially affect accuracy, with both positive and negative effects across models. Prompt-level and schema-level instructions also interact non-additively. The evidence is substantially stronger on GSM8K than on Math500. Our findings show that schema design is not merely output formatting, but part of instruction specification in structured generation.

Effective code generation requires both model capability and a problem representation that carefully structures how models reason and plan. Existing approaches augment reasoning steps or inject specific structure into how models think, but leave scattered problem conditions unchanged. Inspired by the way humans organize fragmented information into coherent explanations, we propose StoryCoder, a narrative reformulation framework that transforms code generation questions into coherent natural language narratives, providing richer contextual structure than simple rephrasings. Each narrative consists of three components: a task overview, constraints, and example test cases, guided by the selected algorithm and genre. Experiments across 11 models on HumanEval, LiveCodeBench, and CodeForces demonstrate consistent improvements, with an average gain of 18.7% in zero-shot pass@10. Beyond accuracy, our analyses reveal that narrative reformulation guides models toward correct algorithmic strategies, reduces implementation errors, and induces a more modular code structure. The analyses further show that these benefits depend on narrative coherence and genre alignment, suggesting that structured problem representation is important for code generation regardless of model scale or architecture. Our code is available at https://github.com/gu-ni/StoryCoder.

Software documentation is essential for program comprehension, developer onboarding, code review, and long-term maintenance. Yet producing quality documentation manually is time-consuming and frequently yields incomplete or inconsistent results. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code, helping developers understand code more efficiently, facilitating maintenance, and supporting downstream activities such as defect localization and commit message generation. However, the effectiveness of LLMs in documentation tasks critically depends on how they are prompted. Properly structured instructions can substantially improve model performance, making prompt engineering-the design of input prompts to guide model behavior-a foundational technique in LLM-based software engineering. Approaches such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and zero-shot learning show promise for code summarization, yet current research remains fragmented. There is limited understanding of which prompting strategies work best, for which models, and under what conditions. Moreover, evaluation practices vary widely, with most studies relying on overlap-based metrics that may not capture semantic quality. This systematic literature review consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in dialogue generation and reasoning, yet their effectiveness in eliciting user-known but concealed information in open-ended conversations remains limited. In many interactive AI applications, such as personal assistants, tutoring systems, and legal or clinical support, users often withhold sensitive or uncertain information due to privacy concerns, ambiguity, or social hesitation. This makes it challenging for LLMs to gather complete and contextually relevant inputs. In this work, we define the problem of information elicitation in open-ended dialogue settings and propose Reinforcement Prompt Selection (RPS), a lightweight reinforcement learning framework that formulates prompt selection as a sequential decision-making problem. To analyze this problem in a controlled setting, we design a synthetic experiment, where a reinforcement learning agent outperforms a random query baseline, illustrating the potential of policy-based approaches for adaptive information elicitation. Building on this insight, RPS learns a policy over a pool of prompts to adaptively elicit concealed or incompletely expressed information from users through dialogue. We also introduce IELegal, a new benchmark dataset constructed from real legal case documents, which simulates dialogue-based information elicitation tasks aimed at uncovering case-relevant facts. In this setting, RPS outperforms static prompt baselines, demonstrating the effectiveness of adaptive prompt selection for eliciting critical information in LLM-driven dialogue systems.

Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models perform well on link prediction but struggle with unseen entities, relations, and especially literals, limiting their use in dynamic, heterogeneous graphs. In contrast, pretrained large language models (LLMs) generalize effectively through prompting. We reformulate link prediction as a prompt learning problem and introduce RALP, which learns string-based chain-of-thought (CoT) prompts as scoring functions for triples. Using Bayesian Optimization through MIPRO algorithm, RALP identifies effective prompts from fewer than 30 training examples without gradient access. At inference, RALP predicts missing entities, relations or whole triples and assigns confidence scores based on the learned prompt. We evaluate on transductive, numerical, and OWL instance retrieval benchmarks. RALP improves state-of-the-art KGE models by over 5% MRR across datasets and enhances generalization via high-quality inferred triples. On OWL reasoning tasks with complex class expressions (e.g., $\exists hasChild.Female$, $\geq 5 \; hasChild.Female$), it achieves over 88% Jaccard similarity. These results highlight prompt-based LLM reasoning as a flexible alternative to embedding-based methods. We release our implementation, training, and evaluation pipeline as open source: https://github.com/dice-group/RALP .

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on data contributed by low-resource language communities, yet the linguistic knowledge encoded in these models remains accessible only through commercial APIs. This paper investigates whether strategic prompting can extract usable text data from LLMs for two West African languages: Hausa (Afroasiatic, approximately 80 million speakers) and Fongbe (Niger-Congo, approximately 2 million speakers). We systematically compare six elicitation task types across two commercial LLMs (GPT-4o Mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash). GPT-4o Mini extracts 6-41 times more usable target-language words per API call than Gemini. Optimal strategies differ by language: Hausa benefits from functional text and dialogue, while Fongbe requires constrained generation prompts. We release all generated corpora and code.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, while recent prompting strategies such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) have further elevated their performance in handling complex logical problems. Despite these advances, high-quality reasoning remains heavily reliant on manual static prompts and is sensitive to decoding configurations and task distributions, leading to performance fluctuations and limited transferability. Existing automatic prompt optimization methods typically adopt single-agent local search, failing to simultaneously optimize prompts and decoding hyperparameters within a unified framework to achieve stable global improvements. To address this limitation, we propose Agent-GWO, a dynamic prompt optimization framework for complex reasoning. Specifically, we unify prompt templates and decoding hyperparameters as inheritable agent configurations. By leveraging the leader-follower mechanism of the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO), we automatically select three leader agents ($α$, $β$, and $δ$) to guide the collaborative updates of the remaining agents, enabling iterative convergence toward robust optimal reasoning configurations that can be seamlessly integrated for inference. Extensive experiments on multiple mathematical and hybrid reasoning benchmarks across diverse LLM backbones show that Agent-GWO consistently improves accuracy and stability over existing prompt optimization methods. The code will be released publicly.