ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2024
Evaluating the effectiveness of prompt engineering for knowledge graph question answering.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating LLMs on Kazakhstan's mathematics exam for university admission.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many different methods for prompting large language models have been developed since the emergence of OpenAI's ChatGPT in November 2022. In this work, we evaluate six different few-shot prompting methods. The first set of experiments evaluates three frameworks that focus on the quantity or type of shots in a prompt: a baseline method with a simple prompt and a small number of shots, random few-shot prompting with 10, 20, and 30 shots, and similarity-based few-shot prompting. The second set of experiments target optimizing the prompt or enhancing shots through Large Language Model (LLM)-generated explanations, using three prompting frameworks: Explain then Translate, Question Decomposition Meaning Representation, and Optimization by Prompting. We evaluate these six prompting methods on the newly created Spider4SPARQL benchmark, as it is the most complex SPARQL-based Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) benchmark to date. Across the various prompting frameworks used, the commercial model is unable to achieve a score over 51%, indicating that KGQA, especially for complex queries, with multiple hops, set operations and filters remains a challenging task for LLMs. Our experiments find that the most successful prompting framework for KGQA is a simple prompt combined with an ontology and five random shots.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.