CAPO: Cost-Aware Prompt Optimization
Tom Zehle, Moritz Schlager, Timo Heiß, Matthias Feurer
Code Available — Be the first to reproduce this paper.
ReproduceCode
- github.com/finitearth/promptolutionOfficialIn papernone★ 116
- github.com/finitearth/capoOfficialIn papernone★ 15
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing by solving a wide range of tasks simply guided by a prompt. Yet their performance is highly sensitive to prompt formulation. While automated prompt optimization addresses this challenge by finding optimal prompts, current methods require a substantial number of LLM calls and input tokens, making prompt optimization expensive. We introduce CAPO (Cost-Aware Prompt Optimization), an algorithm that enhances prompt optimization efficiency by integrating AutoML techniques. CAPO is an evolutionary approach with LLMs as operators, incorporating racing to save evaluations and multi-objective optimization to balance performance with prompt length. It jointly optimizes instructions and few-shot examples while leveraging task descriptions for improved robustness. Our extensive experiments across diverse datasets and LLMs demonstrate that CAPO outperforms state-of-the-art discrete prompt optimization methods in 11/15 cases with improvements up to 21%p. Our algorithm achieves better performances already with smaller budgets, saves evaluations through racing, and decreases average prompt length via a length penalty, making it both cost-efficient and cost-aware. Even without few-shot examples, CAPO outperforms its competitors and generally remains robust to initial prompts. CAPO represents an important step toward making prompt optimization more powerful and accessible by improving cost-efficiency.
Tasks
Benchmark Results
| Dataset | Model | Metric | Claimed | Verified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | Qwen2.5-32B + CAPO | Accuracy | 60.2 | — | Unverified |
| GSM8K | Mistral-Small-24B + CAPO | Accuracy | 65.07 | — | Unverified |
| GSM8K | Llama-3.3-70B + CAPO | Accuracy | 73.73 | — | Unverified |