SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Viktor Zhuravlev

Publications and source records attributed to Viktor Zhuravlev.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

From Monolithic to Modular: Segment-level Automatic Prompt Optimization

Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) often rewrites prompts monolithically, which can improve one behavior while degrading others. We present SAPO, a segment-level APO method that decomposes prompts into role, context, tasks, and output format, then applies targeted improvements based on top-5 and bottom-5 examples. The optimization loop uses one LLM with static meta-prompts and structured outputs for segmentation, weakness analysis, and candidate generation. We describe a train/validation protocol and a two-stage generation process: (1) segment-level diagnosis and recommendation extraction, (2) candidate synthesis constrained by weak/strong segment signals. Using the evaluation setup across SQuADv2, TweetEval, XSUM, CommonGen, and GSM8K on GPT-3.5-Turbo and GPT-4o-mini, SAPO achieves the best average score against Zero-shot and strong APO baselines including APE, OPRO, EvoPrompt, GEPA, and StraGO.

cs.AI

PA-CoT: Profile-Adaptive Chain-of-Thought for Personalized Nutritional Consulting

In health and nutrition consulting, widely used prompting methods pass the user profile as an unstructured block without a dedicated analysis step, leaving personalization as a critical structural gap. We introduce PA-CoT (Profile-Adaptive Chain-of-Thought), a multi-stage prompting method that treats profile interpretation as an explicit, standalone reasoning step prior to response generation. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce the QPA (Question--Profile--Answer) benchmark -- 200 nutritional consulting samples with structured user profiles scored on four criteria. In a comparative study against 11 comparison methods (CoT, Few-Shot, Role Prompting, DSPy, TextGrad, Self-Refine, and others, plus a Zero-Shot Baseline; 12 total including PA-CoT), PA-CoT achieves the best average score (4.21 on the G-Eval 1--5 scale) and leads on both Personalization (4.71 vs. 4.39) and Safety (4.68 vs. 4.52) with non-overlapping 95\% confidence intervals over the nearest competitor -- the only method to simultaneously top both criteria. The results confirm that an explicit profile-analysis step is the key driver of personalization gains over widely used prompting approaches.

cs.HC