LLM Context Conditioning and PWP Prompting for Multimodal Validation of Chemical Formulas
Abstract
Identifying subtle technical errors within complex scientific and technical documents, especially those requiring multimodal interpretation (e.g., formulas in images), presents a significant hurdle for Large Language Models (LLMs) whose inherent error-correction tendencies can mask inaccuracies. This exploratory proof-of-concept (PoC) study investigates structured LLM context conditioning, informed by Persistent Workflow Prompting (PWP) principles, as a methodological strategy to modulate this LLM behavior at inference time. The approach is designed to enhance the reliability of readily available, general-purpose LLMs (specifically Gemini 2.5 Pro and ChatGPT Plus o3) for precise validation tasks, crucially relying only on their standard chat interfaces without API access or model modifications. To explore this methodology, we focused on validating chemical formulas within a single, complex test paper with known textual and image-based errors. Several prompting strategies were evaluated: while basic prompts proved unreliable, an approach adapting PWP structures to rigorously condition the LLM's analytical mindset appeared to improve textual error identification with both models. Notably, this method also guided Gemini 2.5 Pro to repeatedly identify a subtle image-based formula error previously overlooked during manual review, a task where ChatGPT Plus o3 failed in our tests. These preliminary findings highlight specific LLM operational modes that impede detail-oriented validation and suggest that PWP-informed context conditioning offers a promising and highly accessible technique for developing more robust LLM-driven analytical workflows, particularly for tasks requiring meticulous error detection in scientific and technical documents. Extensive validation beyond this limited PoC is necessary to ascertain broader applicability.
Community
Explores the use of advanced prompting techniques for validation of chemical formulas in scholar manuscripts. Developed prompt repeatedly detected formula errors in the test manuscript, including an image-based error (by Gemini), missed in the manual review.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- AI-Driven Scholarly Peer Review via Persistent Workflow Prompting, Meta-Prompting, and Meta-Reasoning (2025)
- Structured Prompting and Feedback-Guided Reasoning with LLMs for Data Interpretation (2025)
- MODP: Multi Objective Directional Prompting (2025)
- The Hidden Structure -- Improving Legal Document Understanding Through Explicit Text Formatting (2025)
- From Prompts to Templates: A Systematic Prompt Template Analysis for Real-world LLMapps (2025)
- FindTheFlaws: Annotated Errors for Detecting Flawed Reasoning and Scalable Oversight Research (2025)
- Task as Context Prompting for Accurate Medical Symptom Coding Using Large Language Models (2025)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment:
@librarian-bot
recommend
Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper