Trade-off between Pretraining and Retrieval for AmbiEval Performance

Abstract

Abstract: This study presents a systematic comparison of three approaches for the analysis of mental health text using large language models (LLMs): prompt engineering, retrieval augmented generation (RAG), and fine-tuning. Using LLaMA 3, we evaluate these approaches on emotion classification and mental health condition detection tasks across two datasets. Fine-tuning achieves the highest accuracy (91\% for emotion classification, 80\% for mental health conditions) but requires substantial computational resources and large training sets, while prompt engineering and RAG offer more flexible deployment with

Research Question

What is the optimal trade-off curve between parametric knowledge from pretraining and non-parametric knowledge from retrieval for maximizing scores on the AmbiEval dataset?

Verification Level

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Truth-Engine Gate Verdict

This record has not completed Gate 2 of the verification pipeline (a type-checked Lean4 proof for mathematical claims, or a sealed-sandbox reproduction for empirical claims). It is a literature synthesis only. VERIFIED requires an attached reproducible artifact (Lean4 proof source, or repro script and results) before this status can be set; it is not derived from review score or claim count.

Quality Tier

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance