Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41286297›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Feedback-integrated prompt optimiser for problem formulation.

Pivithuru Thejan Amarasinghe, Su Nguyen, Yuan Sun, Damminda Alahakoon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Pivithuru Thejan AmarasingheResearch Center for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia. p.amarasinghe@latrobe.edu.au.
Su NguyenCollege of Business and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia.
Yuan SunResearch Center for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.
Damminda AlahakoonResearch Center for Data Analytics and Cognition, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem formulation is a critical yet expertise-intensive step in optimisation modelling. Automating this process offers a promising solution, but requires effective methods to replicate the reasoning and decision-making processes that are both crucial and typically performed by human experts. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have introduced the potential for human-like reasoning in this context, making optimisation more accessible, scalable, and intelligent. However, the substantial computational demands of LLMs limit their practicality in many real-world settings. Small Language Models (SLMs) present a more resource-efficient alternative but face challenges such as limited reasoning capabilities and high sensitivity to prompt structure, reducing their effectiveness in complex tasks like automated problem formulation. To address these limitations, we propose FIPO (Feedback-Integrated Prompt Optimiser), a novel approach designed to enhance the problem formulation capabilities of SLMs through iterative, feedback-driven prompt optimisation. FIPO integrates the local search algorithm with structured feedback generated by agentic workflows that simulate expert evaluations from problem formulation and programming perspectives. We evaluate FIPO on the LPWP dataset and observe consistent performance gains compared to existing state-of-the-art prompt optimisation methods. Our findings establish feedback-guided prompt evolution as a promising strategy for enabling cost-efficient, scalable, and accurate automated problem formulation with SLMs.

Indexed as

FeedbackModels, TheoreticalProblem SolvingAlgorithmsComputer SimulationDecision MakingHumansLanguage modelsProblem formulationPrompt optimisation

Identifiers

PMID41286297
PMCPMC12696083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.