An Outline for an Interrogative/Prompt Library to help improve output quality from Generative-AI Datasets
Open accessAbstract
This White Paper provides insight into an outline for what is termed a proposed ‘Interrogative/Prompt Library’ (IPL) designed to help optimise the quality of output when engaging with Generative-AI (Gen-AI) datasets, such as, most notably, the recently rapidly developing ChatGPT. The White Paper begins with a recap of the authors’ findings from their previous work investigating ChatGPT, as published in full during March 2023 in an earlier ARC White Paper (as referenced). Next, the importance of questioning Large Language Model (LLM) datasets so that they can be better understood is covered, before investigating 'interrogatives' (involving who, why, what, when, where, how, etc. questions) and scoping their role in analytical search processes, including fundamentals relating to how interrogative questions are structured. Following on from the above work are 'Phase 1' suggestions towards building an ‘Interrogative Library Typology', before delving more specifically into the area and activities of 'Prompt Engineering'. The White Paper then examines the development and maintenance of an Interrogative/Prompt Library, in the form of presenting a second phase. That work includes insight into the 'Interrogative Prompt Library Engine' that underpins the above work. A number of overall Conclusions and Key Takeaways are then tabled, noting especially the guidance value acquired from engaging with the activities discussed throughout this White Paper. Thereby, end-users are increasingly better armed for engaging with Gen-AI datasets helping ensure that they best reduce the risks of, amongst others, falling into 'Garbage-In, Garbage- Out' (GIGA) traps. Finally, this White Paper ends with a ‘call for action!’ for further research and development relating to what is tabled in this White Paper, paving the way for further collaboration. Appendices are also included to provide further reference detail. --- ARC White Paper (London: Analytic Research Consortium - ARC, May 2023)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
End-user studies suggest that prompting is challenging, with non-expert users making various errors and adopting ineffective strategies-a reflection of the demand on users' metacognitive monitoring and control.
“End-user studies suggest that prompting is challenging, with nonexpert users making various errors and adopting ineffective strategies-a reflection of the demand on users' metacognitive monitoring and control [33,41,43,85,103,174,205].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [174]
Indicating model uncertainty and an explanation for that uncertainty can help users disentangle the role of their prompting and output evaluation ability from that of models' capabilities, further supporting confidence adjustment.
“Finally, indicating model uncertainty [19,174,198], for example, by means of color-coding [167], and an explanation for that uncertainty [5,190], can also help users disentangle the role of their prompting and output evaluation ability from that of models' capabilities, further supporting confidence adjustment [197].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [174]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 9
- Authors
- Svendsen, A., & Garvey, B.
- Affiliations
- Norwegian Defence University College (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Svendsen, Adam
- ORCID
- Svendsen, Adam
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4383704236
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- prompt engineering, prompt library, large language models, ChatGPT, output quality, garbage in, garbage out
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review