mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

p1: Better Prompt Optimization with Fewer Prompts

arXiv 2604.08801 ↗First posted 9 Apr 2026cs.LG cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.

Builds on

21 of 30 references.

References · 21

  1. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  2. 2024HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Frameworkcited by 2,057
  3. 2025Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspectivecited by 1,345
  4. 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 832
  5. 2023Large Language Modelscited by 780
  6. 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 653
  7. 2023Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolutioncited by 551
  8. 2025MathArena: Evaluating LLMs on Uncontaminated Math Competitionscited by 297
  9. 2025Generalizing Verifiable Instruction Followingcited by 194
  10. 2023EvoPrompt: Connecting LLMs with Evolutionary Algorithms Yields Powerful Prompt Optimizerscited by 193
  11. 2022Instruction Induction: From Few Examples to Natural Language Task Descriptionscited by 152
  12. 2023Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generationcited by 148
9 more
  1. 2023UPRISE: Universal Prompt Retrieval for Improving Zero-Shot Evaluationcited by 75
  2. 2024Trace is the Next AutoDiff: Generative Optimization with Rich Feedback, Execution Traces, and LLMscited by 69
  3. 2025Prompt Curriculum Learning for Efficient LLM Post-Trainingcited by 45
  4. 2024One Prompt is not Enough: Automated Construction of a Mixture-of-Expert Promptscited by 16
  5. 2024StablePrompt: Automatic Prompt Tuning using Reinforcement Learning for Large Language Modelscited by 14
  6. 2025Prompt-R1: Collaborative Automatic Prompting Framework via End-to-end Reinforcement Learningcited by 10
  7. 2025Prompt-MII: Meta-Learning Instruction Induction for LLMscited by 9
  8. 2025promptolution: A Unified, Modular Framework for Prompt Optimizationcited by 6
  9. 2025Are My Optimized Prompts Compromised? Exploring Vulnerabilities of LLM-based Optimizerscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.