Toward Green Code: Prompting Small Language Models for Energy-Efficient Code Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing concern about the environmental impact of large language models (LLMs) in software development, particularly due to their high energy use and carbon footprint. Small Language Models (SLMs) offer a more sustainable alternative, requiring fewer computational resources while remaining effective for fundamental programming tasks. In this study, we investigate whether prompt engineering can improve the energy efficiency of SLMs in code generation. We evaluate four open-source SLMs, StableCode-Instruct-3B, Qwen2.5-Coder-3B-Instruct, CodeLlama-7B-Instruct, and Phi-3-Mini-4K-Instruct, across 150 Python problems from LeetCode, evenly distributed into easy, medium, and hard categories. Each model is tested under four prompting strategies: role prompting, zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought (CoT). For every generated solution, we measure runtime, memory usage, and energy consumption, comparing the results with a human-written baseline. Our findings show that CoT prompting provides consistent energy savings for Qwen2.5-Coder and StableCode-3B, while CodeLlama-7B and Phi-3-Mini-4K fail to outperform the baseline under any prompting strategy. These results highlight that the benefits of prompting are model-dependent and that carefully designed prompts can guide SLMs toward greener software development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".