Structured Prompt Optimization for Few-Shot Text Classification via Semantic Alignment in Latent Space

Jiasen Zheng, Zijun Zhou, Huajun Zhang, Junjiang Lin, Jingyun Jia, Qi Wang · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Abstract

This study addresses the issues of semantic entanglement, unclear label structure, and insufficient feature representation in few-shot text classification, and proposes an optimization framework based on structured prompts to enhance semantic understanding and task adaptation under low-resource conditions. The framework first uses a pretrained language model to encode the input text and obtain basic semantic representations. It then introduces structured prompts composed of multi-dimensional semantic factors and integrates them with text features through a learnable combination mechanism, which forms task-related representations with clear boundaries in the latent space. To further strengthen the consistency between text representations and label semantics, the method constructs a structured label embedding matrix and employs a cross-space alignment mechanism to ensure stable matching between textual features and label attributes. In addition, the model applies prompt orthogonality constraints and a joint optimization objective to maintain independence across different semantic factors in the prompts, allowing the structured prompts to provide transparent and controllable guidance for classification decisions. Three types of sensitivity experiments, including learning rate sensitivity, prompt length sensitivity, and data scale sensitivity, are designed to evaluate the stability and robustness of the framework under different conditions. Experimental results show that the proposed structured prompt optimization framework effectively alleviates semantic conflicts and label ambiguity in few-shot text classification. It significantly improves performance on accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC, and demonstrates strong cross-task applicability.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper appears adjacent to HFEPX scope (human-feedback/eval), but does not show strong direct protocol evidence in metadata/abstract.

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Human Data Lens

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Unknown
Unit of annotation: Unknown
Expertise required: General
Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval: None
Quality controls: Not reported
Confidence: 0.35
Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracyprecisionrecall

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

It significantly improves performance on accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC, and demonstrates strong cross-task applicability. HFEPX signals include Automatic Metrics with confidence 0.35. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 3, 2026, 8:36 PM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

It significantly improves performance on accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC, and demonstrates strong cross-task applicability.
Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
Validate metric comparability (accuracy, precision, recall).

Caveats

Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Recommended Queries

human-eval protocol design pairwise preference data quality inter-rater agreement adjudication

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

It significantly improves performance on accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC, and demonstrates strong cross-task applicability.

Why It Matters For Eval

Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

Detected: Automatic Metrics
Gap: Quality control reporting appears

No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Pass: Metric reporting is present

Detected: accuracy, precision, recall

Category-Adjacent Papers (Broader Context)

These papers are nearby in arXiv category and useful for broader context, but not necessarily protocol-matched to this paper.

Confusion-Aware Rubric Optimization for LLM-based Automated Grading Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 5.00
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, precision, prompt)
When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 4.55
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, precision, text)
IDP Accelerator: Agentic Document Intelligence from Extraction to Compliance Validation Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 3.75
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, structured, classification)
CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 3.30
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, alignment)
Recycling Failures: Salvaging Exploration in RLVR via Fine-Grained Off-Policy Guidance Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 3.30
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, space)
Stepwise Penalization for Length-Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 3.30
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy, optimization)
AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 2.85
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy)
DARE-bench: Evaluating Modeling and Instruction Fidelity of LLMs in Data Science Category Neighbor

Citations: 0 Relevance: 2.85
- Shared arXiv category (cs.CL)
- Shared metric mentions
- Shared terminology (accuracy)

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote