analiza aiqbench
This empirical study clarifies how reflective prompt optimization should utilize model-generated evidence by distinguishing between local reflection success and actual held-out performance gains. The findings indicate that focusing exclusively on failure cases yields the largest test improvements, while relying solely on calibration metrics can overstate a model's true generalization ability. These insights are critical for researchers refining automated instruction tuning pipelines to avoid spurious optimization signals.
What Should the Reflector See? An Empirical Study of Evidence in Reflective Prompt Optimization
arXiv:2609.32452v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reflective prompt optimization revises instructions using examples of a model's behavior, but which evidence the reflector should receive remains unclear. We study evidence composition, visibility of examples, candidate selection and domain-knowledge policy within a single-parent Pareto-guided search. Using Qwen3.5-9B as both task model and reflector, we evaluate nine reflection strategies on five datasets. From these experiments, we find three distinct patterns. For performance improvement, Failures-only produces the largest mean test gain (+8.0 percentage points), while Balanced-mix and No-examples+Val share the best mean performance rank. For reflection effectiveness, No-examples achieves the best rank for improving sampled parents, yet yields only a 1.4-point mean test gain: local reflection success does not necessarily produce a stronger final prompt. For overfitting assessment, Failures-only and Balanced-mix share the lowest mean calibration-gap rank, while larger gaps on GPQA and IFBench show that calibration gains can overstate held-out improvement. This gap is a descriptive indicator, not a direct measure of overfitting. Together, these results show why reflection strategies should be assessed separately on final performance, parent improvement and calibration-to-test transfer.
Title:What Should the Reflector See? An Empirical Study of Evidence in Reflective Prompt Optimization
Abstract:Reflective prompt optimization revises instructions using examples of a model's behavior, but which evidence the reflector should receive remains unclear. We study evidence composition, visibility of examples, candidate selection and domain-knowledge policy within a single-parent Pareto-guided search. Using Qwen3.5-9B as both task model and reflector, we evaluate nine reflection strategies on five datasets. From these experiments, we find three distinct patterns. For performance improvement, Failures-only produces the largest mean test gain (+8.0 percentage points), while Balanced-mix and No-examples+Val share the best mean performance rank. For reflection effectiveness, No-examples achieves the best rank for improving sampled parents, yet yields only a 1.4-point mean test gain: local reflection success does not necessarily produce a stronger final prompt. For overfitting assessment, Failures-only and Balanced-mix share the lowest mean calibration-gap rank, while larger gaps on GPQA and IFBench show that calibration gains can overstate held-out improvement. This gap is a descriptive indicator, not a direct measure of overfitting. Together, these results show why reflection strategies should be assessed separately on final performance, parent improvement and calibration-to-test transfer.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.32452 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.32452v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32452 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 285 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026
Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026
Angles of attack for continual learning safety
LessWrong · 16 iun. 2026