WeWorkBuddy

A Large-Scale Evaluation of Role-Enhanced Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Prompting

arXiv:2610.29073v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper proposes Role-Enhanced Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought (RE-ZS-CoT), a prompting framework that systematically integrates domain-specific expert roles to enhance reasoning in large language models (LLMs) without task-specific examples. We assess two versions of our approach. In the first version, static role selection, we evaluate eight predefined expert roles across arithmetic, commonsense, and reading comprehension benchmarks to determine th

Read original source
Source reference for A Large-Scale Evaluation of Role-Enhanced Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought Prompting. Screenshot not yet available.
Source record · preview pending · arxiv.orgOpen the source for the full page.

Source record

Research analysis

Research claim

Paper identifier: 2610.29073. Source account: arXiv:2610.29073v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This paper proposes Role-Enhanced Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought (RE-ZS-CoT), a prompting framework that systematically integrates domain-specific expert roles to enhance reasoning in large language models (LLMs) without task-specific examples. We assess two versions of our approach. In the first version, static role selection, we evaluate eight predefined expert roles across arithmetic, commonsense, and reading comprehension benchmarks to determine th

Evaluation record

Recent records to compare: “Human-like cross-language generalisation in deep neural speaker embeddings and its acoustic foundations” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026); “When to Ask, When to Answer: Strategic Clarification for Ambiguous Reference Resolution in Dialogue” (arXiv, Nov 5, 2026). Shared themes are navigation hints; they have not been verified as the same need or independent corroboration.

What the result supports

Interpret results only for the reported model version, task, data and inference budget. Community votes, downloads or a benchmark position do not establish reliability in a different workflow.

Validity gaps

Check sample selection, baseline configuration, uncertainty, contamination risk, negative results and access to code or weights. No reproduction by WeWorkBuddy is recorded here.

Verification plan

Read the paper or model card and its evaluation appendix. Reproduce one bounded result against the stated baseline, then test a representative user task and record where the conclusion fails.