## 7 EGTL Experiment
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & **Task** & **Total** & **Succeeded** & **Avg. Model** & **Avg. Output** & **Avg. Prompt** & **Avg. Model** \\  & **Difficulty** & **Experiments** & **(\%)** & **Work Time (s)** & **Correctness** & **Size** & **Output Size** \\  & & & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline gemini-1.5-flash & 1 & 10 & 80.0 & 0.81 & 100 & 563 & 70.75 \\ gemini-1.5-flash & 2 & 10 & 70.0 & 1.27 & 100 & 565 & 121.57 \\ gemini-1.5-flash & 3 & 10 & 40.0 & 1.69 & 100 & 570 & 217.50 \\ gpt-3.5-turbo & 1 & 10 & 100.0 & 9.07 & 100 & 563 & 71.00 \\ gpt-3.5-turbo & 2 & 10 & 100.0 & 7.76 & 100 & 565 & 116.70 \\ gpt-3.5-turbo & 3 & 10 & 91.0 & 8.45 & 100 & 570 & 222.00 \\ gpt-4 & 1 & 10 & 90.0 & 10.58 & 100 & 563 & 74.56 \\ gpt-4 & 2 & 10 & 80.0 & 7.39 & 100 & 565 & 123.75 \\ gpt+4 & 3 & 10 & 100.0 & 8.66 & 100 & 570 & 222.30 \\ mistral-small & 1 & 10 & 100.0 & 1.02 & 100 & 563 & 67.00 \\ mistral-small & 2 & 10 & 100.0 & 1.26 & 100 & 565 & 105.30 \\ mistral-small & 3 & 10 & 80.0 & 2.24 & 100 & 570 & 196.62 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & Task & Total & \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & Avg. model & \
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & Avg. output & Avg. model \\  & difficulty & experiments & (\%) & work time (s) & (\%) & size (symbols) &
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} \\ \hline Difficulty level 1 & 1 & 40 & 92.5 & 5.37 & 100 & 563 & 70.73 \\ Difficulty level 2 & 2 & 40 & 87.5 & 4.42 & 100 & 565 & 116.03 \\ Difficulty level 3 & 3 & 40 & 78.0 & 5.34 & 100 & 570 & 215.19 \\ \hline All levels & & 120 & 85.95 & 5.04 & 100 & 566 & 130.42 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Performance metrics of EGTL fusion store generate data experiment. icantly between models, with mistral-small being the fastest at 0.54 milliseconds, and gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4 requiring considerably more time, averaging around 9.87 and 9.74 milliseconds respectively. Table 11 provides a comparative summary of the performance metrics across all EGTL experiments, detailing the performance of the different stages. The overall success rate for all experiments was a strong 92.36%, indicating high effectiveness across the EGTL framework. The extraction phase exhibited a success rate of 87.92%, slightly lower than the other phases, which suggests that this stage may present more challenges or complexities, especially as the task difficulty increases. The generation and transformation stages followed closely with success rates of 92.98% and 88.56%, respectively, reflecting a reliable performance, albeit with slight variations that may be attributed to the complexity of tasks and the nature of the data processed. The loading phase achieved a perfect success rate of 100%, underscoring the robustness of the models in analyzing data at this final stage. Across all stages, the average output correctness remained consistently high, close to 100%, indicating that the models were accurate in their outputs regardless of the stage or task complexity. The average model work time was notably higher in the extraction and transformation stages compared to the loading stage, reflecting the increased computational demands during these phases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Model**} & **Task Difficulty Level** & **Total Experiments** & **Succeeded Experiments (\%)** & **Avg. Model Work Time (s)** & **Avg. Output Correctness (\%)** & **Avg. Prompt Size (Symbols)** & **Avg. Model Output Size (Symbols)** \\ \hline gemini-1.5-flash & 5 & 40 & 100 & 0.65 & 100 & 1282 & 33 \\ gpt-3.5-turbo & 5 & 40 & 100 & 9.87 & 100 & 1456 & 29 \\ gpt-4 & 5 & 40 & 100 & 9.74 & 100 & 1461 & 56 \\ mistral-small & 5 & 40 & 100 & 0.54 & 100 & 1581 & 19 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{Summary for all models} & 5 & 160 & 100 & 5.20 & 100 & 1446 & 34 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Performance metrics of EGTL alliance store business intelligence experiment.