Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper analyzes the factors that determine the success of prompt optimization, identifying the ratio between variance in model responses and variance in system prompt quality as key. They find that scaling the number of user prompts can paradoxically hurt optimization performance, especially on heterogeneous datasets. To address this, they introduce p1, a user prompt filtering method that selects a subset of prompts exhibiting high variance across candidate system prompts, leading to improved optimization.
Counterintuitively, throwing more user prompts at prompt optimization can backfire, especially on diverse datasets, but a clever filtering strategy can unlock surprisingly strong generalization from just a handful of examples.
Prompt optimization improves language models without updating their weights by searching for a better system prompt, but its effectiveness varies widely across tasks. We study what makes a task amenable to prompt optimization. We show that the reward variance across different system prompts can be decomposed into two components: variance among responses, which captures generation stochasticity, and variance among system prompts, which captures differences in system prompt quality. Prompt optimization succeeds when variance among system prompts is sufficiently large, but fails when variance among responses dominates the variance of the system prompts. Surprisingly, we further show that scaling to more user prompts can hurt optimization by reducing variance among system prompts, especially on heterogeneous datasets where different user prompts favor different system prompts. Motivated by this insight, we propose p1, a simple user prompt filtering method that selects a small subset of user prompts with high variance across candidate system prompts. This subset of user prompts allows one to distinguish a good system prompt from a bad one, making system optimization easier. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks show that p1 substantially improves prompt optimization over training on the full dataset and outperforms strong baselines such as GEPA. Notably, training on only two prompts from AIME 24 yields a system prompt that generalizes well to other reasoning benchmarks.
