REVIEW 1 cited by
Coal Mining Question Answering with LLMs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In this paper, we present a novel approach to coal mining question answering (QA) using large language models (LLMs) combined with tailored prompt engineering techniques. Coal mining is a complex, high-risk industry where accurate, context-aware information is critical for safe and efficient operations. Current QA systems struggle to handle the technical and dynamic nature of mining-related queries. To address these challenges, we propose a multi-turn prompt engineering framework designed to guide LLMs, such as GPT-4, in answering coal mining questions with higher precision and relevance. By breaking down complex queries into structured components, our approach allows LLMs to process nuanced technical information more effectively. We manually curated a dataset of 500 questions from real-world mining scenarios and evaluated the system's performance using both accuracy (ACC) and GPT-4-based scoring metrics. Experiments comparing ChatGPT, Claude2, and GPT-4 across baseline, chain-of-thought (CoT), and multi-turn prompting methods demonstrate that our method significantly improves both accuracy and contextual relevance, with an average accuracy improvement of 15-18\% and a notable increase in GPT-4 scores. The results show that our prompt-engineering approach provides a robust, adaptable solution for domain-specific question answering in high-stakes environments like coal mining.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
IndustryEQA: Pushing the Frontiers of Embodied Question Answering in Industrial Scenarios
IndustryEQA offers 1,344 video-based question-answer pairs across six categories, with a focus on equipment and human safety, plus evaluations of several vision-language models.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.