ESPO: Error-Structured Prompt Optimization via Diagnose, Diversify, and Stabilize
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Evolutionary prompt optimizers such as GEPA suffer from prompt bloat: each iteration appends rules and caveats, producing prompts up to 3× longer yet no more accurate. We trace this to three deficiencies - incomplete error observation, limited search diversity, and unreliable selection - and propose ESPO (Error-Structured Prompt Optimization), which decomposes prompt optimization into three phases: Diagnose clusters all training errors into structural patterns in one round; Propose generates candidates via four complementary strategies with independent biases; Select applies bootstrap stability selection. On seven public NLP benchmarks - Tweet, MMLU, GSM8K, HotpotQA, ScoNe, HoVer, and PUPA - ESPO improves average accuracy by +3.76 pp over the state-of-the-art (74.67% vs 70.91% for GEPA), matching or exceeding GEPA on every dataset while producing prompts 47% shorter (1,004 vs 1,878 chars) and faster at inference. Cross-model experiments across four additional student models (Gemma 3 12B, Mistral 14B, Qwen3 32B, Claude Haiku 4.5) show ESPO yields the best average accuracy on every model tested, with the largest gap on Qwen3 GSM8K (15.00% → 91.40%). A generalization bound (Appendix) grounds each phase in a corresponding term of the test-time gap, and the ablation confirms a key prediction: adding diversity without bootstrap selection actually hurts performance (-1.20%).
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Sep 2026.
Builds on
18 of 30 references.
References · 18
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,323
- 2022Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineerscited by 1,020
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2023DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelinescited by 803
- 2023Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Searchcited by 628
- 2023Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolutioncited by 521
- 2025GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learningcited by 449
- 2024Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programscited by 270
- 2022Domino: Discovering Systematic Errors with Cross-Modal Embeddingscited by 155
- 2024Efficient Prompt Optimization Through the Lens of Best Arm Identificationcited by 35
- 2019Slice-based Learning: A Programming Model for Residual Learning in Critical Data Slicescited by 23
6 more
- 2025Optimas: Optimizing Compound AI Systems with Globally Aligned Local Rewardscited by 23
- 2025MOPrompt: Multi-objective Semantic Evolution for Prompt Optimizationcited by 4
- 2026Generalizable Self-Evolving Memory for Automatic Prompt Optimizationcited by 4
- 2025Reflection-Enhanced Meta-Optimization Integrating TextGrad-style Prompt Optimization with Memory-Driven Self-Evolutioncited by 3
- 2025Prompts Generalize with Low Data: Non-vacuous Generalization Bounds for Optimizing Prompts with More Informative Priorscited by 3
- 2025A Toolbox for Improving Evolutionary Prompt Searchcited by 3
Built on by
Not cited yet.