Improving the Energy-Efficiency of the Code Generated by LLMs through Effective Prompting

Although LLMs are capable of generating functionally correct code, they also tend to produce less energy-efficient code in comparison to human-written solutions. As these inefficiencies lead to higher computational overhead, they are in direct conflict with Green Software Development (GSD) efforts, which aim to reduce the energy consumption of code. To support these efforts, this study aims to investigate whether and how LLMs can be optimized to promote the generation of energy-efficient code. To this end, we employ Contrastive Prompt Tuning (CPT). CPT combines Contrastive Learning techniques, which help the model to distinguish between efficient and inefficient code, and Prompt Tuning, a Parameter-Efficient Fine Tuning (PEFT) approach that requires only a fraction of the cost of traditional fine tuning. This study evaluates CPT on Python, Java and C++ coding problems across three different models to provide a comprehensive evaluation. The method achieves consistent improvements in code accuracy for two models but efficiency gains vary by model, language and task complexity, indicating that improvements are not uniformly reliable.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to optimize code for performance. This practice often assumes that improvements in execution speed naturally translate into overall lower energy consumption. We challenge this assumption empirically by measuring whether performance-optimized code produced by LLM self-refinement pipelines is also energy-efficient relative to canonical human reference solutions, and whether the energy cost of the optimization process can be offset by subsequent execution-time savings. We evaluate 11 open-source models across four decoding configurations on all 1,000 problems of EffiBench, a state-of-the-art performance benchmark, while collecting per-process, hardware-level energy measurements throughout. Inference energy spans 0.79 to 8.68 MJ across model-variant pairs, which is roughly equivalent to the energy of 250 to 2800 GPT-4.1 queries. Limiting the maximum number of output tokens has the largest impact, reducing energy use by up to 69% compared to the default configuration. On the execution side, 42 of 44 configurations produce code that consumes more energy per problem than the canonical human reference, with overheads ranging from +4% to +886%. The two exceptions achieve only marginal gains, with break-even points on the order of 10^6 to 10^7 executions. Mixture-of-Experts architectures consume substantially less inference energy than equivalently-sized dense models without sacrificing correctness, making architectural choice a more consequential sustainability lever than decoding parameters. Performance optimization and energy efficiency are not always aligned goals: LLM self-refinement consistently produces faster-seeking but energy-heavier code relative to what a human engineer would write. All artifacts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23598170.

Code models strictly prioritize functional correctness, leaving software energy efficiency as an unoptimized byproduct. Training models to generate energy-efficient code requires reproducible feedback at scale, which physical hardware measurement cannot reliably provide due to variance. In this paper, we replace hardware profiling with a deterministic architectural simulation harness to build Green Tea, a corpus of $3.5$ million evaluations across $1{,}474$ C++ problems. We train an energy-aware code model via supervised fine-tuning on energy-contrastive pairs, followed by closed-loop reinforcement learning (GRPO) using simulation-in-the-loop feedback. To rigorously evaluate deployment readiness, we introduce the Correctness-Adjusted Reduction in Energy Total (CARET), a metric that explicitly penalizes code that sacrifices functionality for efficiency. On $143$ held-out problems, our simulation-in-the-loop pipeline achieves $12.63\%$ CARET, nearly tripling the gain of fine-tuning alone, and successfully beats the energy efficiency of human-expert references on $58.4\%$ of its valid outputs. Furthermore, our analysis exposes the IPC trap: standard throughput proxies like Instructions-Per-Cycle (IPC) actively misrank true energy efficiency on $67.8\%$ of problems, proving the absolute necessity of direct energy simulation. By releasing our dataset and infrastructure, we bypass the $263{,}000$ CPU-hours required for reproduction, structurally empowering the community to deploy inherently energy-efficient code generation models.