Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This preregistered study reveals that prompt optimizers like GEPA, MIPROv2, and TextGrad often sacrifice adherence to unscored requirements—such as citation validity or output format—to maximize a single target metric. The findings indicate that these regressions are frequently artifacts of token limits rather than inherent flaws, as increasing the output cap resolves extraction failures while maintaining accuracy gains. For developers relying on automated prompt tuning, this highlights the critical need for multi-objective optimization strategies that explicitly penalize contract violations alongside performance metrics.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Do Prompt Optimizers Break Requirements They Are Not Scored On? A Preregistered Study

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.13287v1 Announce Type: new 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.

Title:Do Prompt Optimizers Break Requirements They Are Not Scored On? A Preregistered Study

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.

8 pages, 7 tables. Preregistered study

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.13287 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.13287v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.13287 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 301 words

Related coverage