arXiv preprint ·
Do Prompt Optimizers Break Requirements They Are Not Scored On? A Preregistered Study
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Prompt optimizers rewrite a prompt to raise one target metric, but prompts also state requirements the metric does not score, such as an output format, citations, or abstention. In a preregistered study, we run GEPA, MIPROv2, and TextGrad on HotpotQA, SQuAD 2.0, and IFEval and count per-item violations of unscored requirements with deterministic checks. By the preregistered criterion, all three optimizers produce regressions, substantially on HotpotQA, where net regression in citation validity reaches 10.7 to 41.6 points while exact match rises by 21 to 34 points. A post-hoc decomposition changes this reading. The optimized prompts elicit reasoning before the required JSON object, and under the 200-token output cap used throughout, 13.9% to 47.0% of responses end before any answer appears. Among parseable outputs, net regression is within 3 points of zero. With a 1,024-token cap, extraction failures disappear, content regression stays below 1 point, and exact match rises further. Two simple gates fail the preregistered criterion. The side effect is narrower than hypothesized: optimized prompts are more accurate and break an explicit output contract, and a lenient target metric does not show the cost.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
When Charts Deceive Web Agents: A Paired Benchmark for Misleading Visualization-Grounded Tasks
Scaling Laws for Multimodal Data Mixtures
COFFEQA: Counterfactual-Guided Few-Shot Distillation for LLM Question Answering
MemForm: Benchmarking Memory Formation Poisoning in LLM Agents
Fear Is Not Always Fear: Variation in Emotion Label Equivalence Across Datasets
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.