PreprintCited by 9Computational and Text Analysis MethodsTopic ModelingArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

From Prompt Engineering to Prompt Science With Human in the Loop

Open access
Shah, Chirag·2024·arXiv

Abstract

As LLMs make their way into many aspects of our lives, one place that warrants increased scrutiny with LLM usage is scientific research. Using LLMs for generating or analyzing data for research purposes is gaining popularity. But when such application is marred with ad-hoc decisions and engineering solutions, we need to be concerned about how it may affect that research, its findings, or any future works based on that research. We need a more scientific approach to using LLMs in our research. While there are several active efforts to support more systematic construction of prompts, they are often focused more on achieving desirable outcomes rather than producing replicable and generalizable knowledge with sufficient transparency, objectivity, or rigor. This article presents a new methodology inspired by codebook construction through qualitative methods to address that. Using humans in the loop and a multi-phase verification processes, this methodology lays a foundation for more systematic, objective, and trustworthy way of applying LLMs for analyzing data. Specifically, we show how a set of researchers can work through a rigorous process of labeling, deliberating, and documenting to remove subjectivity and bring transparency and replicability to prompt generation process. A set of experiments are presented to show how this methodology can be put in practice.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.04122

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The validation framework was inspired by the works of Shah [52] and Pangakis et al. [53] and customized to the project's objectives and resource constraints.

    “The validation framework utilized in this study is inspired by the works of Shah [52] and Pangakis et al., [53] and has been customized to meet the specific objectives and resource constraints of our project”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Shah, C.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Shah, Chirag
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4390783881
Cited by
9
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
prompt engineering, large language models, human-in-the-loop, codebook construction, qualitative research, replicability, transparency, subjectivity reduction, research rigor

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