mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating LLMs for Zeolite Synthesis Event Extraction (ZSEE): A Systematic Analysis of Prompting Strategies

arXiv 2512.15312 ↗First posted 17 Dec 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Extracting structured information from zeolite synthesis experimental procedures is critical for materials discovery, yet existing methods have not systematically evaluated Large Language Models (LLMs) for this domain-specific task. This work addresses a fundamental question: what is the efficacy of different prompting strategies when applying LLMs to scientific information extraction? We focus on four key subtasks: event type classification (identifying synthesis steps), trigger text identification (locating event mentions), argument role extraction (recognizing parameter types), and argument text extraction (extracting parameter values). We evaluate four prompting strategies - zero-shot, few-shot, event-specific, and reflection-based - across six state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemma-3-12b-it, GPT-5-mini, O4-mini, Claude-Haiku-3.5, DeepSeek reasoning and non-reasoning) using the ZSEE dataset of 1,530 annotated sentences. Results demonstrate strong performance on event type classification (80-90% F1) but modest performance on fine-grained extraction tasks, particularly argument role and argument text extraction (50-65% F1). GPT-5-mini exhibits extreme prompt sensitivity with 11-79% F1 variation. Notably, advanced prompting strategies provide minimal improvements over zero-shot approaches, revealing fundamental architectural limitations. Error analysis identifies systematic hallucination, over-generalization, and inability to capture synthesis-specific nuances. Our findings demonstrate that while LLMs achieve high-level understanding, precise extraction of experimental parameters requires domain-adapted models, providing quantitative benchmarks for scientific information extraction.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2025.

Builds on

19 of 54 references.

References · 19

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  3. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  4. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  5. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  6. 2021Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processingcited by 2,234
  7. 2024DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Modelcited by 1,135
  8. 2016Neural Architectures for Named Entity Recognitioncited by 550
  9. 2023Larger language models do in-context learning differentlycited by 394
  10. 2018Multi-Task Identification of Entities, Relations, and Coreference for Scientific Knowledge Graph Constructioncited by 322
  11. 2019Entity, Relation, and Event Extraction with Contextualized Span Representationscited by 262
  12. 2020Event Extraction by Answering (Almost) Natural Questionscited by 177
7 more
  1. 2021Reframing Instructional Prompts to GPTk's Languagecited by 176
  2. 2023Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulnesscited by 130
  3. 2020SciREX: A Challenge Dataset for Document-Level Information Extractioncited by 113
  4. 2023Revisiting Relation Extraction in the era of Large Language Modelscited by 102
  5. 2021DEGREE: A Data-Efficient Generation-Based Event Extraction Modelcited by 83
  6. 2022Prompt for Extraction? PAIE: Prompting Argument Interaction for Event Argument Extractioncited by 54
  7. 2020Cross-Media Keyphrase Prediction: A Unified Framework with Multi-Modality Multi-Head Attention and Image Wordingscited by 11

Built on by

Not cited yet.