# Navigating the Prompt Space: Improving LLM Classification of Social Science Texts Through Prompt Engineering

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25422 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.25422/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 26 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03714/) (2023)
- [GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.19457/) (2025)
- [Understanding and Mitigating Numerical Sources of Nondeterminism in LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09501/) (2025)
- [Introducing HALC: A general pipeline for the systematic and reliable construction of prompts for automated coding with LLMs in the computational social sciences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21831/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Recent developments in text classification using Large Language Models (LLMs) in the social sciences suggest that costs can be cut significantly, while performance can sometimes rival existing computational methods. However, with a wide variance in performance in current tests, we move to the question of how to maximize performance. In this paper, we focus on prompt context as a possible avenue for increasing accuracy by systematically varying three aspects of prompt engineering: label descriptions, instructional nudges, and few shot examples. Across two different examples, our tests illustrate that a minimal increase in prompt context yields the highest increase in performance, while further increases in context only tend to yield marginal performance increases thereafter. Alarmingly, increasing prompt context sometimes decreases accuracy. Furthermore, our tests suggest substantial heterogeneity across models, tasks, and batch size, underlining the need for individual validation of each LLM coding task rather than reliance on general rules.