Prompts tuned for accuracy often grow long, raising inference cost on every model call. The best accuracy-cost trade-off depends on the task and the budget, so prompt optimization is a search over the Pareto front of accuracy and prompt-token cost rather than for one prompt. The usual shortcut, collapsing the objectives into a weighted sum, fixes the trade-off weight before search and often recovers only a narrow region of the front, a failure we call scalarization collapse. We present CRAFT (Cost-aware Refinement And Front-aware Tuning), a Pareto-front prompt optimizer that treats target-LLM validation calls as the scarce resource and allocates them to candidates near the optimistic candidate front. Each round, complementary accuracy-oriented and cost-oriented generators propose edits, Pareto-gap acquisition spends the per-round validation budget, and NSGA-II retention keeps a spread-out population. Across six classification and reasoning benchmarks, CRAFT's retained fronts reach both high-accuracy and low-cost regions, while accuracy-only, cost-only, and weighted-sum baselines each concentrate in narrower regions. The accuracy-cost trade-off becomes a post-search choice, not a pre-search weight.
Large language models (LLMs) achieve strong performance across a wide range of tasks but are highly sensitive to prompt design, motivating the need for automatic prompt optimization. Existing methods predominantly focus on performance alone, ignoring competing objectives such as inference cost or latency. At the same time, existing work on multi-objective prompt optimization relies on off-the-shelf NSGA-II, ignoring optimization efficiency. As a remedy, we introduce MO-CAPO, a novel multi-objective prompt optimization algorithm that jointly optimizes performance and inference cost while leveraging budget allocation for cost-efficient optimization. We further propose a deployment-oriented cost objective that captures the full computational profile of LLM inference. We evaluate our approach across four tasks and three LLMs and compare it to an NSGA-II-based multi-objective method and state-of-the-art single-objective prompt optimizers. Results show that MO-CAPO consistently identifies strong, robust, and diverse Pareto front approximations while maintaining cost-efficiency. It outperforms the NSGA-II baseline on 8 out of 12 cases in terms of the noisy R2 metric and achieves competitive performances often already at a considerably lower budget. The discovered solution sets span diverse performance-cost trade-offs that are omitted by single-objective optimizers, yet the top-performance candidates remain competitive with single-objective solutions. Additionally, we conduct the first evaluation of multi-objective machine learning experiments that considers generalization and robustness through noisy R2 and approximation gap, enabling a more realistic assessment of solution quality. MO-CAPO enables practitioners to select from an efficiently discovered set of multiple prompts offering different trade-offs between performance and cost.
Large language models increasingly support scientific and algorithmic discovery through inference-time search over evaluated candidates. Existing adaptive discovery controllers assign credit based only on score progress, even though prompt length, retries, and guidance calls cause search actions to incur different token costs. We prove that cost-blind credit can forfeit all but a vanishing fraction of attainable quality as frontiers multiply and costs diverge. Under a fixed search-side token budget, the controller must decide which frontier is improving and whether its gain justifies the realized cost before the budget is exhausted. We introduce \textbf{CostAda}, a cost-calibrated adaptive controller built around \emph{cost-calibrated frontier utility}. The utility values frontier progress relative to realized action cost and conditions that credit on the remaining budget. CostAda uses this signal to control local exploration intensity, frontier allocation, and budgeted tactic intervention. Cost and remaining budget therefore shape the search rather than serving only as accounting variables or a stopping rule. CostAda reaches the strongest baseline's full-budget quality with at most half the budget on twelve of sixteen benchmark--backbone pairs while achieving the strongest mean final quality on all eight benchmarks under GLM-5 and GPT-5.4.
Evolutionary optimization of LLM prompts and agentic programs (e.g., GEPA) is dominated by fitness evaluation: scoring each candidate runs an answering LLM over a validation set, so the evaluator's price tier dictates total search cost. We restructure that search by decoupling the three roles an LLM plays, running the high-volume answering role on the cheapest tier, reserving a strong model for the rare reflection/variation operator, then exploiting upward cross-tier transfer to deploy the cheaply evolved prompt on a stronger target. We contribute a cost-controlled characterization of when cheap-tier search substitutes for target-tier search, and where it fails. Across four tasks (HotpotQA, IFBench, LiveBench-Math, HoVer) and eleven models in four model families, the resulting prompt matches or exceeds same-tier optimization while placing over 96% of search tokens on the cheapest tier, at 5.6-14x lower search cost, rising to 25-54x where reasoning tiers emit long chains of thought on every fitness call.