Can We Afford The Perfect Prompt? Balancing Cost and Accuracy with the Economical Prompting Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As prompt engineering research rapidly evolves, evaluations beyond accuracy are crucial for developing cost-effective techniques. We present the Economical Prompting Index (EPI), a novel metric that combines accuracy scores with token consumption, adjusted by a user-specified cost concern level to reflect different resource constraints. Our study examines 6 advanced prompting techniques, including Chain-of-Thought, Self-Consistency, and Tree of Thoughts, across 10 widely-used language models and 4 diverse datasets. We demonstrate that approaches such as Self-Consistency often provide statistically insignificant gains while becoming cost-prohibitive. For example, on high-performing models like Claude 3.5 Sonnet, the EPI of simpler techniques like Chain-of-Thought (0.72) surpasses more complex methods like Self-Consistency (0.64) at slight cost concern levels. Our findings suggest a reevaluation of complex prompting strategies in resource-constrained scenarios, potentially reshaping future research priorities and improving cost-effectiveness for end-users.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".