A controlled study examining how formatting and LLM-based tuning of coding task prompts affect the resulting code's performance, efficiency, and stability suggests that low-effort reformatting alone can yield measurable improvements, while tuning must account for model alignment.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in research workflows and software development pipelines, yet their output remains sensitive to input prompt variations. This paper presents $\unicode{x00AB}$PromptResponse$\unicode{x00BB}$, a controlled study examining how formatting and LLM-based tuning of coding task prompts affect the resulting code's performance, efficiency, and stability. Using five semantically identical yet syntactically distinct variants of the HumanEval dataset$\unicode{x2014}$baseline, JSON, Markdown, YAML, and an LLM-tuned version$\unicode{x2014}$we had GPT-4o solve its coding problems over 8200$\unicode{x00A0}$executions. Our results show that consistent formatting$\unicode{x2014}$especially JSON$\unicode{x2014}$improves generation efficiency and syntactic stability, with minor gains in task performance. Conversely, the LLM-tuned prompts resulted in significantly degraded task performance without significant improvements in any other dimension. These findings suggest that low-effort reformatting alone can yield measurable improvements, while tuning must account for model alignment. We conclude our work with providing a set of practical recommendations informed by our results as well as releasing our dataset variants and evaluation pipeline for future work.
This project proposes three variant frameworks to identify and evaluate minimal prompts and demonstrates that minimal prompts often produce outputs comparable to those of their longer counterparts.
Marius F. R. Juston, Kevin A. Karim, Jonathan Gao et al.· 0 citations
It is suggested that using standard CoT prompting increasingly acts as a source of distraction as models grow stronger, because standard CoT prompting also demands style adaptation, formatting compliance, and potentially undesired contextualization, which can distract models from the core reasoning task.
Denys Pushkin, Albert Q. Jiang, Aryo Lotfi et al.· 0 citations
Findings show that vulnerability is architecture-dependent rather than size-dependent, that individually neutral or beneficial constraints can combine to cause substantial degradation, and that compound-prompt testing should be standard in reliability assessment for LLM-assisted engineering pipelines.
Shrenik Jadhav, Nickalsa LaPlaca, Caleb Stone et al.· 0 citations
The $\varepsilon$-MemEvo framework for cross-task knowledge transfer in LLM program evolution stores prior experience as task-agnostic tactic memories: compact natural-language summaries of successful algorithmic strategies rather than raw code, enabling transfer across tasks with different APIs and evaluators.
Results support ZS as a low-overhead reference within the four evaluated benchmarks and the stated model, quantization, prompt, and decoding settings, with model–task exceptions.
Seyoung Kim, Bonggyun Ko· Applied Sciences· 0 citations
Two novel contributions are introduced: CodeEval and CodeQual, an open-source execution framework that provides researchers with a ready-to-use evaluation pipeline for evaluating and improving LLMs in software engineering contexts, encompassing both functional correctness assessment and subjective code quality evaluati...
Danny Brahman· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.