Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 4
- Last push
- May 5, 2026 (44d ago)
Risk flags
- No Docker setup
- Dependency manifest missing
Peng Gang
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Natural language prompts often suffer from intent transmission loss: the gap between what users actually need and what they communicate to AI systems. We evaluate PPS (Prompt Protocol Specification), a 5W3H-based framework for structured intent representation in human-AI interaction. In a controlled three-condition study across 60 tasks in three domains (business, technical, and travel), three large language models ( ...
DeepSeek-V3, Qwen-Max, and Kimi), and three prompt conditions - (A) simple prompts, (B) raw PPS JSON, and (C) natural-language-rendered PPS - we collect 540 AI-generated outputs evaluated by an LLM judge. We introduce goal_alignment, a user-intent-centered evaluation dimension, and find that rendered PPS outperforms both simple prompts and raw JSON on this metric. PPS gains are task-dependent: gains are large in high-ambiguity business analysis tasks but reverse in low-ambiguity travel planning. We also identify a measurement asymmetry in standard LLM evaluation, where unconstrained prompts can inflate constraint adherence scores and mask the practical value of structured prompting. A preliminary retrospective survey (N = 20) further suggests a 66.1% reduction in follow-up prompts required, from 3.33 to 1.13 rounds. These findings suggest that structured intent representations can improve alignment and usability in human-AI interaction, especially in tasks where user intent is inherently ambiguous.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Natural language prompts often suffer from intent transmission loss: the gap between what users actually need and what they communicate to AI systems.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
None detected
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.