From 8e840af755a573c2c9fca2a23002e61c29db390d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: davidediruscio Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 11:16:08 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] [logseq-plugin-git:commit] 2025-06-10T09:16:08.409Z --- pages/RecSys_2025_Reproducibility_689.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pages/RecSys_2025_Reproducibility_689.md b/pages/RecSys_2025_Reproducibility_689.md index d11162fd..1bd9dc6b 100644 --- a/pages/RecSys_2025_Reproducibility_689.md +++ b/pages/RecSys_2025_Reproducibility_689.md @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ todoist:: https://app.todoist.com/app/task/689-revisiting-prompt-engineering-a-c - ### [[Comments]] - **REVIEW** - The paper is clearly written and well structured. Overall I liked reading the paper even though there are some improvements that are needed. In particular, even though the experiments are properly conducted and convincing, authors should clarify the use of random rankings to complete output lists that might introduce noise or bias. Additionally, I would improve the definition of "baseline", which is currently blurred. - - The methodology is clearly presented and the combinations that have been investigated permit to distill and discuss interesting insights about the selection of the right prompt configrations for the task at hand. Nevertheless, authors should discuss more the external validity of the obtained results. To what extent do they apply to situations / domains that are different than those considered in the paper? + - The methodology is clearly presented and the combinations that have been investigated permit to distill and discuss interesting insights about the selection of prompt configrations. Nevertheless, authors should discuss more the external validity of the obtained results. To what extent do they apply to situations / domains that are different from those considered in the paper? - - ### **Overall Presentation:** - **Score: 4 – Well-Presented**