# ContraPrompt: Contrastive Prompt Optimization via Dyadic Reasoning Trace Analysis

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17937 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17937/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 8 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Prompting and chain-of-thought reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/prompting-and-chain-of-thought-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models as Optimizers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03409/) (2023)
- [Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04618/) (2025)
- [TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07496/) (2024)
- [Learning from Contrastive Prompts: Automated Optimization and Adaptation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15199/) (2024)
- [GDPR-Bench-Android: A Benchmark for Evaluating Automated GDPR Compliance Detection in Android](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.00619/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [SPEAR: Code-Augmented Agentic Prompt Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26275/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt optimization methods either analyze individual failures in isolation or compare prompt variants across examples, operating on single execution traces with no access to the reasoning process distinguishing success from failure on the same input. We introduce ContraPrompt, built on the observation that when a model fails but succeeds on a retry with feedback, the difference between its two chain-of-thought traces constitutes an optimization signal not captured by prior methods. Unlike prior contrastive methods, we compare complete intermediate reasoning processes: the two traces share model, input, and base prompt, so remaining differences reflect reasoning strategy and appended error feedback -- we call this dyadic reasoning trace analysis. The multi-attempt solving phase is an instrumented agentic retry loop that generates contrastive data automatically without human annotation. Extracted rules are organized into an input-aware decision tree routing instructions by observable input characteristics. On four reasoning and compliance benchmarks, ContraPrompt outperforms GEPA (Agrawal et al., 2026) on all four, with absolute gains of +8.29 pp on HotPotQA (+20.8% rel.), +2.21 pp on GDPR-Bench (+18.2% rel.), +7.14 pp on GPQA Diamond (+10.6% rel.), and +0.74 pp on BBH (+0.85% rel.). Ablations confirm dyadic trace contrastivity is the critical component, with a -16% relative average drop upon its removal. On 53 EvalSet black-box optimization problems, ContraPrompt beats GEPA on 11, ties on 41, and loses on 1 at equal budget. On FiNER-139 financial named entity recognition (Loukas et al., 2022), ContraPrompt achieves +7.77 pp over the unoptimized baseline (+11.6% rel.) and +1.94 pp over GEPA (+2.66% rel.), with branch conditions aligning with standard US GAAP financial-instrument categories.