Automatic Prompt Optimization

Approximate multipliers deliberately relax computational accuracy to achieve gains in power efficiency, latency, and silicon area, which makes them well-suited for error-resilient applications such as neural networks. In this work, we introduce a co-evolutionary algorithm that leverages an off-the-shelf large language model (LLM) without requiring domain-specific training to automate the design of optimized 8-bit approximate multipliers. The approach simultaneously evolves a population of candidate circuits and a population of prompt templates that steer LLM-driven modifications. Experimental results for several target design objectives demonstrate that the proposed method discovers approximate multipliers with improved error-area trade-offs compared to highly optimized circuits from the EvoApproxLib library.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have democratized database access through Text-to-SQL, but moving from prototypes to production remains difficult. Real deployments must handle strict SQL dialects, massive schemas, and evolving user preferences, while supervised fine-tuning is costly and rigid and agentic test-time scaling is expensive. We present Tahoe, a system that treats prompt optimization as a dynamic data management problem. Tahoe uses an error-driven hint learning pipeline across Development and Deployment to consolidate debugging traces into a structured Hint Bank. Compiler feedback is distilled into reusable Syntax Hints for dialect-specific rules, while execution and user feedback are converted into Semantic Hints for schema- and user-specific logic. Tahoe further introduces a Strategy Layer that models conflicting user intents as competing strategies under shared natural-language triggers, with recency signals and post-learning attribution statistics that summarize empirical success, harm, inertness, and support. At inference time, Tahoe retrieves relevant hints and guides the LLM through Logic Planning followed by SQL Synthesis. We implement and evaluate the development-phase workflow, leaving deployment-time human-feedback updates for future work. On Spider 2.0-Snow, Tahoe substantially improves Text-to-SQL without updating model parameters. On 113 supervised Spider 2.0-Snow-0212 examples using GPT-5.5, Tahoe raises pass rate from 61.95 percent to 79.42 percent and pass-at-4 from 72.57 percent to 87.61 percent, achieves 100 percent Snowflake syntax pass rate, and reduces average compiler-feedback critic rounds from 2.79 to 0.12 per sampled candidate. The same Hint Bank also transfers to weaker backbones, including a 19.7 percentage-point pass-rate gain on Doubao-2.0-lite.

Large Language Models are highly sensitive to prompt formulation, necessitating automatic prompt optimization to unlock their full potential. While evolutionary algorithms have emerged as the dominant paradigm, they suffer from a critical bottleneck: data efficiency. Current methods treat the development dataset as a static benchmark, wasting significant compute budget on uninformative data. In this work, we introduce APEX (Automatic Prompt Engineering eXpert), a novel framework that optimizes the data usage alongside the prompt search. APEX dynamically stratifies the dataset into Easy, Hard, and Mixed tiers based on the optimization lineage. By prioritizing the Mixed tier, which identifies the data where the LLM has mixed performance, we identify two high-leverage subsets: the addressable frontier for generating informative mutations and the rank-sensitive frontier for distinguishing candidate quality. We evaluate APEX across three diverse benchmarks: IFBench, SimpleQA Verified, and FACTS Grounding. Under a fixed budget of 5,000 evaluation calls, due to its data efficiency, APEX outperforms the initial prompt by an average of 11.2% on Gemini 2.5 Flash and 6.8% on Gemma 3 27B, demonstrating that a data-centric approach is key to efficient and effective prompt optimization.

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.

System prompt optimization improves agent behavior without modifying the underlying model, yielding human-readable, model-agnostic instructions. Existing methods build a prompt agent that refines task agents' system prompts, yet leave the prompt agent's own system prompt hand-engineered and fixed. We propose Self-Evolving Prompt Optimization (SePO), which treats the prompt agent's own system prompt as an optimization target alongside task agents' system prompts. SePO adopts a self-referential design. A single prompt agent improves both task agents' system prompts and its own under an open-ended evolutionary search that maintains an archive of candidate prompts as stepping stones. Training proceeds in two stages: pre-training evolves the prompt agent on a multi-task pool, and fine-tuning then applies it to a target task. Across five benchmarks spanning math (AIME'25), abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI-1), graduate-level science (GPQA), code generation (MBPP), and logic puzzles (Sudoku), SePO consistently outperforms Manual-CoT, TextGrad, and MetaSPO, improving the average accuracy by 4.49 points compared to Manual-CoT. The prompt optimization skill from pre-training also generalizes to tasks beyond the pre-training mixture, rather than memorizing per-task prompts.

While prompt engineering is instrumental in maximizing the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) during inference, the role of prompts during training remains critically underexplored. Prevailing fine-tuning paradigms typically treat training prompts as mere surface forms, assuming that semantically equivalent instructions yield identical learning outcomes. However, we reveal that this equivalence is deceptive: while paraphrased prompts often lead to comparable in-task performance, they induce drastically different cross-task impacts regarding catastrophic forgetting and generalization. Crucially, these impacts are positively correlated across tasks, indicating the existence of superior prompts that consistently yield better performance. Furthermore, we discover that these superior prompts can be robustly identified by task loss prior to learning. Leveraging these insights, we introduce State-Adaptive Prompt Optimization (SAPO), a lightweight yet effective training strategy that shifts task formulation from a static input to a dynamic, state-adaptive variable. Comprehensive experiments on diverse benchmarks confirm its effectiveness, which significantly mitigates forgetting while improving generalization, achieving substantial performance gains over state-of-the-art methods. These results provide insights into how training prompts shape learning dynamics and offer a practical recipe for robust fine-tuning. Our code is available at https://github.com/Eric8932/SAPO.

Automatic prompt optimization (APO) has driven significant gains in LLM-based agentic workflows. However, existing methods treat each task's prompt as a monolithic, instance-blind string optimized through global edits, producing brittle updates and preventing the reuse of learned sub-behaviors. We propose Prompt Codebooks (PCO), a novel compositional prompt optimization framework that recasts APO as discrete learning over a finite vocabulary of natural-language instincts - atomic, reusable instruction units. PCO organizes prompt-construction knowledge in a discrete codebook and routes each input to a small subset of entries via an LLM-based encoder; a generator composes them into a prompt for the frozen target model; a critic emits a structured verdict that decomposes by attribution into per-variable textual gradients, jointly training the encoder, generator, and codebook under a language-valued min-max objective. The resulting routing is per-instance: different inputs in the same task receive different instinct compositions, a regime structurally inexpressible under instance-blind methods. Across six benchmarks on Qwen3-8B and LLaMA-3.1-8B, PCO improves over zero-shot by up to +30.36 points, surpasses the strongest prior baseline (GEPA) by +3.34 on HotpotQA and +1.11 in aggregate, and reduces deployed prompt length by up to 14.1x versus MIPROv2 and 3.0x versus GEPA using only K=16 instincts.

Aligning LLMs for math tutoring typically requires RL-based training with multi-GPU infrastructure. We investigate whether training-free prompt optimization-evolving only the system prompt via API calls-can serve as a practical alternative. We adapt 7 published methods and propose 5 education-specialized methods, evaluating these 12 methods under 5 conditions on 2 OOD benchmark suites. All 12 best-per-method configurations surpass the strongest RL-trained baseline (R_total = 0.633), and our ParetoGrad achieves the best Pareto balance across post-test solve rate, leak control, and helpfulness, rather than dominating any single component. Behavioral analysis with an 82-code educational codebook reveals that training-free methods rely on teaching-knowledge patterns at 2-3x the rate of RL-trained models, with a compensating ~10 percentage-point reduction in intent-level scaffolding. We also find a task-dependent reasoning mode effect consistent across training-free and RL-based paradigms. Our approach enables efficient development of pedagogically aligned LLM tutors with prompts alone and minimal compute.

Automated prompt optimization methods (e.g., DSpy, TextGrad) can substantially improve the performance of large language model (LLM), however, their generalization ability across different tasks remains underperformed. In practice, the superiority of the optimized prompt on one benchmark often fails to transfer to another, and this limitation persists even when switching across different LLM backbones. To investigate the underexplored sources of heterogeneity in prompt performance, we conduct a causal inference-inspired observational analysis of optimized prompts across a diverse set of optimization frameworks, LLM backbones, and NLP benchmarks. To achieve the goal, we build upon the propensity-adjusted associational analysis together with multiple complementary representations of prompt edits, where the consistent task-conditioned edits patterns are identified. We find that complexity-increasing and meta-instructional edits are negatively associated with mathematical and multi-hop reasoning performance, whereas step-by-step and meta-cognitive edits improve logical and sequential reasoning tasks. These effects are robust across cognitive-load annotations, surface-level text features, and edit-motif analyses, and can generalize across optimization frameworks. Overall, these results indicate that prompt optimization failures arise from systematic interactions between edit families and task characteristics rather than random optimization artifacts, providing feature-level characterization of optimizer behavior and motivating future task-conditioned optimizer design.

Automatic prompt engineering (APE) rewrites prompts to improve downstream task performance, but existing APE loops treat the optimizer itself as a fixed pipeline. We port the code-as-action paradigm of CodeAct (Wang et al., 2024a) to APE and propose SPEAR (Sandboxed Prompt Engineer with Active Roll-back), a free-form agentic optimizer with four tools -- evaluate, python, set_prompt, finish -- that decides autonomously how and when to use them. The distinctive tool is the Python sandbox: the optimizer writes and executes arbitrary Python on the current evaluation DataFrame, performing structural error analysis (confusion matrices, error clustering, per group metrics) the agent itself authors. Two guardrails turn the long-horizon agent into a monotone-improving optimizer: auto-rollback on metric regression, and an optional guard metric floor. We evaluate on three industrial LLM-as-judge suites (13 judge tasks across recruiter-intake, conversational-memory, and query-refinement systems) plus seven BBH tasks and GSM8K. SPEAR wins every industrial task on the primary metric ($κ$ 0.857 vs 0.359 on tool-selection; F1-macro 0.815 vs 0.763 on filter-relevance; $κ$ 0.254 vs 0.218 on the hardest extraction dimension). On BBH-7 SPEAR averages 0.938 accuracy vs GEPA 0.628 and TextGrad 0.484. Ablations show the Python tool is the largest single lever on complex judge tasks ($Δ\approx +0.79κ$ on the 5-class tool-selection judge, $Δ\approx +0.35κ$ on the hardest extraction dimension when removed); its irreplaceable contribution is class-pair confusion aggregation that a long-context LLM cannot extract reliably from the raw eval DataFrame.

Deploying language-model agents in production often requires substantial compute and human effort to tune prompts, parsers, validators, and other components of the agent pipeline. Self-evolution offers a promising alternative, but most existing frameworks assume access to frontier models that can reliably diagnose failures, propose revisions, and judge their own updates. We study whether frozen small language models (SLMs) can serve as effective self-evolving agents under resource constraints. We propose PACE (Prompt And Control Logic Evolution), a two-timescale framework that coordinates low-risk prompt refinement with higher-risk control-logic updates. PACE evolves prompts under fixed control logic until prompt-level gains saturate, then considers constrained control-logic updates that are accepted through held-out validation. Across three frozen SLM backbones ranging from 4B to 14B parameters and four controlled benchmarks, PACE achieves the best performance on all 12 backbone--benchmark combinations, improving over vanilla SLM agents by up to +9.2% relative improvement and over the stronger single-mode evolution baseline by up to +5.4% relative improvement. A tau-bench case study further shows that PACE improves multi-turn tool-use success over vanilla and prompt-only evolution. These results suggest that reliable SLM agent self-evolution is possible without updating model weights or relying on frontier-model teachers, and that the key benefit is not any single final solver pattern but autonomous, validated discovery of task-appropriate inference strategies.

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable of following instructions and complex reasoning, making prompting a flexible interface for adapting models without parameter updates. Yet prompt design remains labor-intensive and highly sensitive to formatting, phrasing, and instruction order, motivating automated prompt optimization methods that reduce manual effort while preserving inference-time flexibility. However, existing methods often search over prompt candidates or use fixed critique-refine pipelines driven by individual examples or small batches, limiting their ability to capture systematic error patterns and make targeted edits grounded in failure history. We propose Reflective Prompt Tuning (RPT), a framework that uses LLM function calling to simulate the iterative workflow of human prompt engineers. An LLM optimizer calls a diagnostic function that evaluates the target model over an entire optimization set, summarizes recurring failure modes, and returns a structured diagnostic report. The optimizer uses this report, together with an accumulated memory of prior reports, to revise the prompt for the next iteration. RPT further supports confidence-aware optimization by using calibration signals in diagnostic feedback and final prompt selection. Across three reasoning tasks, RPT improves over initial prompts by up to 12.9 points, remains competitive with state of the art, and improves confidence calibration. Our analyses show that RPT is especially effective on multi-hop and mathematical reasoning, producing targeted prompt revisions that align with diagnosed failure patterns and lead to gains in task performance and calibration.

Typical LLM responses tend to follow a default style, even though users often have distinct preferences regarding tone, verbosity, and formality that they do not explicitly state in their prompts. Evaluating whether personalization methods can adapt to these implicit preferences is challenging, since users typically provide prompts rather than reference responses, style preferences are not factually verifiable, and reference-free LLM judges may conflate personalization with general response quality. To address these challenges, we introduce the Arbitrary Preference Mapping (APM) benchmark, which decouples user attributes (e.g. enthusiastic) from response principles (e.g. persuasive) via a hidden, randomized mapping $\mathbf{C}$ that maps user attributes to preferences about response traits. Because $\mathbf{C}$ carries no semantic content and is resampled across runs, models cannot exploit stereotypical associations and must infer preferences from conversation history. Using this unbiased evaluation methodology, we adapt retrieval-augmented, prompt-optimization, and routing personalization methods and evaluate them on Llama-3.1-8B and Qwen-3.5-27B. Our results show that routing is the most reliable approach, while RAG only improves with the stronger base LLM, and soft prompt optimization fails to improve significantly over a non-personalized baseline. Our extensive evaluation reveals that in this realistic setting, personalization remains challenging, but our adapted methods show promise.

System prompts are a central control mechanism in modern AI systems, shaping behavior across conversations, tasks, and user populations. Yet they are difficult to tune when feedback is available only as aggregate metrics rather than per-example labels, failures, or critiques. We study this aggregate feedback setting as sample-constrained black-box optimization over discrete, variable-length text. We introduce ReElicit, a Bayesian optimization framework based on \emph{embedding by elicitation}. Given a task description, previously evaluated prompts, and scalar scores, an LLM elicits a compact, interpretable feature space and maps prompts into it. Leveraging a probabilistic Gaussian process surrogate, an acquisition function then selects target feature vectors, which the LLM realizes and refines into deployable system prompts. Re-eliciting the feature space as new evaluations arrive lets the representation adapt to the observed prompt-score history. We evaluate the setting using offline benchmark accuracy as a controlled aggregate proxy: the optimizer observes one scalar score per prompt and no per-example labels, errors, or critiques. Across ten system prompt optimization tasks with a 30 total evaluation budget, ReElicit achieves the strongest aggregate performance profile among representative aggregate-only prompt-optimization baselines. These results suggest that LLMs can serve as adaptive semantic representation builders, not only prompt generators, for Bayesian optimization over natural-language artifacts.

Prompt optimization has often been framed as a discrete search problem to find high-performing and robust instructions for a large language model (LLM). However, the search result might not make it transparent why and where specific prompt changes lead to performance gains. This is in contrast to how humans are instructed for annotation tasks. Here, researchers carefully design annotation guidelines, leading to enhanced annotation consistency. Our paper aims at joining these two approaches and introduces iPOE, a novel interpretable prompt optimization strategy via explanations. We guide the prompt optimization process by automatically created guidelines from explanations of annotation decisions (either automatically generated or from humans). This set of guidelines is furthermore optimized by a series of operations, including removing, adding, shuffling, and merging. The resulting prompt includes guidelines that instruct the annotation, making the decision process of the LLM and the optimization transparent. It therefore supports also laypeople in prompt optimization. In our experiments on four datasets, we find that iPOE can improve over the evaluated baselines by up to 39% and LLM explanations can replace human explanations in the proposed method. Moreover, our interpretability validation study demonstrates that humans and LLMs substantially agree on which guidelines contribute to their annotations, achieving a Cohen's kappa score between annotators and LLMs of up to 0.68, 0.80, and 0.95 for the emotion classification, medical fact-checking, and hate speech detection tasks respectively.

Argumentative essays serve as a vital medium for assessing critical thinking and reasoning skills, yet there is limited works on accurately understanding and evaluating such texts via prompt. In this work, we propose TIDE, a novel framework designed to improve criteria-based prompt optimization for argument-related tasks by integrating TrIal and DEbate mechanism. Our method addresses key limitations of criteria-based prompt optimizing by mitigating the influence of noisy training data and enhancing optimization stability. We evaluate TIDE on three core tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Argument Component Detection, and Argument Relation Identification. Results demonstrate that our framework improves performance across tasks. These findings underscore the potential of combining prompt-based methods for advanced argument understanding.

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.

Prompt engineering is crucial for effective interaction with generative artificial intelligence systems, yet existing optimisation methods often operate over an unstructured and vast prompt space, leading to high computational costs and potential distortions of the original intent. We introduce Prompt Segmentation and Annotation Optimisation (PSAO), a structured prompt optimisation framework designed to improve prompt optimisation controllability and efficiency. PSAO decomposes a prompt into interpretable segments (e.g., sentences) and augments each with human-readable annotations (e.g., {not important}, {important}, {very important}). These annotations guide large language models (LLMs) in allocating focus and clarifying confusion during response generation. We formally define the segmentations and annotations and demonstrate that optimised segment-level annotations can lead to improved LLM responses, with the original prompt retained as a candidate in the optimisation space to prevent performance degradation. Empirical evaluations indicate that PSAO benefits from annotations in terms of improved reasoning accuracy and self-consistency. However, developing efficient methods for identifying optimal segmentations and annotations remains challenging and is reserved for future investigation. This work is intended as a proof of concept, demonstrating the feasibility and potential of segment-level annotation optimisation.

Prompt engineering has become central to eliciting the capabilities of large language models (LLMs). At its core lies prompt selection -- efficiently identifying the most effective prompts. However, most prior investigations overlook a key challenge: the inherently multi-faceted nature of prompt performance, which cannot be captured by a single metric. To fill this gap, we study the multi-objective prompt selection problem under two practical settings: Pareto prompt set recovery and best feasible prompt identification. Casting the problem into the pure-exploration bandits framework, we adapt provably efficient algorithms from multi-objective bandits and further introduce a novel design for best feasible arm identification in structured bandits, with theoretical guarantees on the identification error in the linear case. Extensive experiments across multiple LLMs show that the bandit-based approaches yield significant improvements over baselines, establishing a principled and efficient framework for multi-objective prompt optimization.

Conversational recommender systems (CRSs) are a core component of next-generation intelligent recommender systems because they enable users to actively elicit preferences, clarify intentions, and adapt recommendations in real time. However, there are two key obstacles in the CRS domain: evaluation and access to training data. Evaluating CRSs through real human studies is more critical than for traditional recommender systems, yet such studies are both costly and time-consuming. Moreover, CRS interaction data are often difficult to obtain for model training due to privacy concerns. Large language model (LLM)-based user simulators have shown promise in addressing both challenges by generating synthetic user interactions for evaluation and training. However, existing approaches suffer from systematic positive bias, data leakage, and limited behavioral diversity, and they rely on brittle manual prompt engineering that requires extensive domain expertise. In this paper, we propose a framework to automatically optimize prompts for LLM-based user simulators in CRSs, simultaneously mitigating these issues. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework achieves improved behavioral alignment with human interaction patterns compared to baseline methods across diverse prompt settings.

This methods article presents a reproducible calibration workflow for prompt-based large language models (LLMs) in structured evidence-synthesis tasks. The method separates the rules that define the scientific task from the mutable prompt harness that frames and applies them. It optimises that harness against labelled or reference examples and an explicit task metric, then preserves the calibrated workflow as an inspectable artefact with its specification, metric, settings, and evaluation traces. The example code instantiates the protocol with DSPy and GEPA tools, but the underlying logic can transfer to other prompt-optimisation frameworks that support structured task definitions, metric-guided search, and artefact reuse. Title and abstract screening is the worked validation case because it provides labelled benchmark data and clear evaluation metrics. The demonstrated workflow uses a smaller student LLM for performing the scientific task execution and a larger reflection LLM to steer the prompt optimisation process during calibration. This work shows compilation, artefact round-tripping, and how optimisation budget affects a smaller student model.

Existing white-box jailbreak attacks against aligned LLMs typically append discrete adversarial suffixes to the user prompt, which visibly alters the prompt and operates in a combinatorial token space. Prior work has avoided directly optimizing the embeddings of the original prompt tokens, presumably because perturbing them risks destroying the prompt's semantic content. We propose Prompt Embedding Optimization (PEO), a multi-round white-box jailbreak that directly optimizes the embeddings of the original prompt tokens without appending any adversarial tokens, and show that the concern is unfounded: the optimized embeddings remain close enough to their originals that the visible prompt string is preserved exactly after nearest-token projection, and quantitative analysis shows the model's responses stay on topic for the large majority of prompts. PEO combines continuous embedding-space optimization with structured continuation targets and an adaptive failure-focused schedule. Counterintuitively, later PEO rounds can benefit from heuristic composite response scaffolds that are not natural standalone templates, yet ASR-Judge shows that the resulting gains are not merely empty formatting or scaffold-only outputs. Across two standard harmful-behavior benchmarks and competing white-box attacks spanning discrete suffix search, appended adversarial embeddings, and search-based adversarial generation, PEO outperforms all of them in our experiments.

Data is a central resource for modern enterprises, and data validation is essential for ensuring the reliability of downstream applications. However, existing automated data unit testing frameworks are largely task-agnostic: they validate datasets without considering the semantics and requirements of the code that consumes the data. We present PrismaDV, a compound AI system that analyzes downstream task code together with dataset profiles to identify data access patterns, infer implicit data assumptions, and generate task-aware executable data unit tests. To further adapt the data unit tests over time to specific datasets and downstream tasks, we propose "Selective Informative Feedback for Task Adaptation" (SIFTA), a prompt-optimization framework that leverages the scarce outcomes from the execution of data unit tests and downstream tasks. We evaluate PrismaDV on two new benchmarks spanning 60 tasks across five datasets, where it consistently outperforms both task-agnostic and task-aware baselines in generating unit tests that reflect the end-to-end impact of data errors. Furthermore, we show that with SIFTA, we can automatically learn prompts for PrismaDV's modules that outperform prompts written by hand or generated from a generic prompt optimizer. We publicly release our benchmarks and prototype implementation.

This work explores the role of prompt design and judge selection in LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations of free text legal question answering. We examine whether automatic task prompt optimization improves over human-centered design, whether optimization effectiveness varies by judge feedback style, and whether optimized prompts transfer across judges. We systematically address these questions on the LEXam benchmark by optimizing task prompts using the ProTeGi method with feedback from two judges (Qwen3-32B, DeepSeek-V3) across four task models, and then testing cross-judge transfer. Automatic optimization consistently outperforms the baseline, with lenient judge feedback yielding higher and more consistent gains than strict judge feedback. Prompts optimized with lenient feedback transfer better to strict judges than the reverse direction. Analysis reveals that lenient judges provide permissive feedback, yielding prompts with broader applicability, whereas strict judges produce restrictive feedback, leading to judge-specific overfitting. Our findings demonstrate algorithmically optimizing prompts on training data can outperform human-centered prompt design and that judges' dispositions during optimization shape prompt generalizability.

Hospital Quality Improvement (QI) plays a critical role in optimizing healthcare delivery by translating high-level hospital goals into actionable solutions. A critical step of QI is to identify the key modifiable contributing factors, a process we call QI factor discovery, typically through expert-driven semi-structured qualitative tools like fishbone diagrams, chart reviews, and Lean Healthcare methods. AI has the potential to transform and accelerate QI factor discovery, which is traditionally time- and resource-intensive and limited in reproducibility and auditability. Nevertheless, current AI alignment methods assume the task is well-defined, whereas QI factor discovery is an exploratory, fuzzy, and iterative sense-making process that relies on complex implicit expert judgments. To design an AI pipeline that formalizes the QI process while preserving its exploratory components, we propose viewing the task as learning not only LLM prompts but also the overarching natural-language specifications. In particular, we map QI factor discovery to steps of the classical AI/ML development process (problem formalization, model learning, and model validation) where the specifications are tunable hyperparameters. Domain experts and AI agents iteratively refine both the overarching specifications and AI pipeline until AI extractions are concordant with expert annotations and aligned with clinical objectives. We applied this "Human-AI Spec-Solution Co-optimization" framework at an urban safety-net hospital to identify factors driving prolonged length of stay and unplanned 30-day readmissions. The resulting AI-for-QI pipelines achieved $\ge 70\%$ concordance with expert annotations. Compared to prior manual Lean analyses, the AI pipeline was substantially more efficient, recovered previous findings, surfaced new modifiable factors, and produced auditable reasoning traces.

Prompt optimization methods either analyze individual failures in isolation or compare prompt variants across examples, operating on single execution traces with no access to the reasoning process distinguishing success from failure on the same input. We introduce ContraPrompt, built on the observation that when a model fails but succeeds on a retry with feedback, the difference between its two chain-of-thought traces constitutes an optimization signal not captured by prior methods. Unlike prior contrastive methods, we compare complete intermediate reasoning processes: the two traces share model, input, and base prompt, so remaining differences reflect reasoning strategy and appended error feedback -- we call this dyadic reasoning trace analysis. The multi-attempt solving phase is an instrumented agentic retry loop that generates contrastive data automatically without human annotation. Extracted rules are organized into an input-aware decision tree routing instructions by observable input characteristics. On four reasoning and compliance benchmarks, ContraPrompt outperforms GEPA (Agrawal et al., 2026) on all four, with absolute gains of +8.29 pp on HotPotQA (+20.8% rel.), +2.21 pp on GDPR-Bench (+18.2% rel.), +7.14 pp on GPQA Diamond (+10.6% rel.), and +0.74 pp on BBH (+0.85% rel.). Ablations confirm dyadic trace contrastivity is the critical component, with a -16% relative average drop upon its removal. On 53 EvalSet black-box optimization problems, ContraPrompt beats GEPA on 11, ties on 41, and loses on 1 at equal budget. On FiNER-139 financial named entity recognition (Loukas et al., 2022), ContraPrompt achieves +7.77 pp over the unoptimized baseline (+11.6% rel.) and +1.94 pp over GEPA (+2.66% rel.), with branch conditions aligning with standard US GAAP financial-instrument categories.

Prompt optimization in compound AI systems is statistically indistinguishable from a coin flip: across 72 optimization runs on Claude Haiku 4.5 (6 methods $\times$ 4 tasks $\times$ 3 repeats), 49% score below zero-shot; on Amazon Nova Lite, the failure rate is even higher. Yet on one task, all six methods improve over zero-shot by up to $+6.8$ points. What distinguishes success from failure? We investigate with 18,000 grid evaluations and 144 optimization runs, testing two assumptions behind end-to-end optimization tools like TextGrad and DSPy, in the order they must be answered: (A) agent prompts interact, requiring joint rather than independent optimization, and (B) individual prompts are worth optimizing at all. Interaction effects are never significant ($p > 0.52$, all $F < 1.0$), and optimization helps only when the task has exploitable output structure: a format the model can produce but does not default to. We further give a mechanistic account: instruction-tuning compresses input phrasing into a narrow output distribution, eliminating the very phrasing-sensitivity that joint optimization assumes. We provide a two-stage diagnostic: an $80 ANOVA pre-test for agent coupling, and a 10-minute headroom test that predicts whether optimization is worthwhile, turning a coin flip into an informed decision.

GPU kernel optimization challenges LLMs beyond standard coding tasks, as it requires an understanding of hardware architecture, parallel computing optimization strategies, and profiling outputs. However, most existing approaches leveraging LLMs for kernel generation apply standard prompting and feedback loops, considering hardware only through profiling feedback. We introduce KernelFoundry, an evolutionary framework that efficiently explores the space of GPU kernels through (1) MAP-Elites quality diversity search with kernel-specific behavioral dimensions to sustain exploration; (2) meta-prompt evolution that co-evolves prompts with kernels to uncover task-specific optimization strategies, and (3) a template-based parameter optimization approach to tune kernels to inputs and hardware. We evaluate this framework on Kernel-Bench, robust-kbench and custom tasks, generating SYCL kernels as a cross-platform GPU programming paradigm, and CUDA kernels for comparison to prior work. Our approach consistently outperforms the baseline methods and achieves an average speedup of 2.3 on KernelBench for SYCL. Moreover, KernelFoundry is implemented as a distributed framework with remote access to diverse hardware, allowing quick benchmarking and featuring a flexible user input layer to support kernel generation for a wide range of real use cases beyond benchmarking.

Personalized prompting offers large opportunities for deploying large language models (LLMs) to diverse users, yet existing prompt optimization methods primarily focus on task-level optimization while largely overlooking user-specific preferences and latent constraints of individual users. This gap is primarily due to (i) the absence of high-quality, privacy-sensitive data that capture personalized user-LLM interactions at scale, and (ii) the lack of robust reward signals for individual preferences. To overcome existing data limitations, we introduce a high-fidelity synthetic data generation framework called PersonaGym. Unlike prior work that treats personalization as static persona-preference pairs, PersonaGym models a dynamic preference process via an agentic LLM system to simulate realistic preference behaviors and semantic-aware noise in order to generate personalized multi-turn interaction trajectories. Using PersonaGym, we release PersonaAtlas, a large-scale, high-quality, and diverse synthetic dataset of high-fidelity multi-turn personalized interaction trajectories that closely mirror real-world preference expression and noise patterns. We further propose Personalized Prompt Optimization (PPOpt), a scalable and model-agnostic framework that optimizes user prompts based on interaction histories without modifying the deployed LLM. PPOpt adopts a reason-then-optimize paradigm that infers an explicit user profile and conditions prompt rewriting on the user profile to avoid reward hacking. Our training procedure for PPOpt integrates a cold-start supervised prior with outcome-driven multi-objective reinforcement learning. We present extensive experiments to demonstrate consistent improvements over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of task performance, personalization quality, and robustness to noisy as well as to sparse preference signals.

Prompt optimization has become a practical way to improve the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) without retraining. However, most existing frameworks treat evaluation as a black box, relying solely on outcome scores without explaining why prompts succeed or fail. Moreover, they involve repetitive trial-and-error refinements that remain implicit, offering limited interpretability or actionable guidance for systematic improvement. In this paper, we propose MA-SAPO: a new Multi-Agent Reasoning for Score Aware Prompt Optimization framework that links evaluation outcomes directly to targeted refinements. Specifically, in the Training Phase, multiple agents interpret evaluation scores, diagnose weaknesses, and generate concrete revision directives, which are stored as reusable reasoning assets. In the Test Phase, an analyzer agent retrieves relevant exemplars and assets for a new prompt, and a refiner agent applies evidence-based edits to improve the prompt and its response. By grounding optimization in structured reasoning, MA-SAPO ensures edits are interpretable, auditable, and controllable. Experiments on the HelpSteer1/2 benchmarks show that our framework consistently outperforms single-pass prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, and prior multi-agent methods across multiple evaluation metrics.