Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

Empirical Prompt Engineering for Construct Identification with Large Language Models

Kylie L. Anglin, Stephanie Milan, Brittney Hernandez, Claudia VenturaPublished Dec 3, 2025
arXiv PDF
Researcher verdict
Context only
Use as context only
Benchmark evidence
Thin evidence
Verify before relying
Time to first repro
A few days
Plan setup time
Risk flags
2
Review before use

Abstract

Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.

Due to their architecture and vast pre-training data, large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on text classification tasks. However, LLM classifications are highly responsive to prompt wording, particularly, as we show, in domains like psychology, where constructs are often latent, complex, and theory driven. Here, we present and evaluate a systematic framework for improving psychological construct identification through prompt engineering. We combinatorially generate prompts by appending random selections of multiple variants of construct definitions, task instructions, coding guidance, and examples. Empirically selecting the highest performing of these combinations in a training dataset substantially improves alignment between LLM and human classifications. In contrast, prompting techniques such as personas, chain-of-thought reasoning, and explanations provide smaller and less consistent improvements. This finding holds across multiple models and constructs. Overall, the approach we describe offers a practical, systematic, and theory-aware method for increasing the alignment between human and LLM classifications in settings where validity is critical.

Results and benchmarks

Freshness tier: hot
Due to their architecture and vast pre-training data, large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance on text classification tasks.
Task Dataset Metric Value Source
Instruction tuning gpt-5.4 F1 0.97 paper-derived

Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure below.

Implementation

No direct implementation yet

Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.

Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.

Implementation evidence summary
Confidence: low

Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.

Reproduction risks
  • Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow

Reproduction readiness

Time to first repro: days
Last checked: Oct 25, 2026

No repo

No verified implementation available

  • No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.

Hardware requirements

  • Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.

Repositories and ecosystem

No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.

Hugging Face artifacts

No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.

Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.

Research context

Tasks

Instruction tuning

Methods

QUBO / Combinatorial optimization

Domains

Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models

Evaluation and human feedback data

Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.

Open in HFEPX
Explore similar papers

Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.