pith. sign in

arxiv: 2505.24189 · v2 · pith:S5CYRGCWnew · submitted 2025-05-30 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

Fine-Tune an SLM or Prompt an LLM? The Case of Generating Low-Code Workflows

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords fine-tuningpromptcostsgeneratinglanguagellmslow-codemodels
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4o can handle a wide range of complex tasks with the right prompt. As per token costs are reduced, the advantages of fine-tuning Small Language Models (SLMs) for real-world applications -- faster inference, lower costs -- may no longer be clear. In this work, we present evidence that, for domain-specific tasks that require structured outputs, SLMs still have a quality advantage. We compare fine-tuning an SLM against prompting LLMs on the task of generating low-code workflows in JSON form. We observe that while a good prompt can yield reasonable results, fine-tuning improves quality by 10% on average. We also perform systematic error analysis to reveal model limitations.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantifying Prior Dominance in RAG Systems

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Introduces NCU metric using token log-probabilities and finds small language models match or outperform larger ones in strict factual RAG extraction, while commercial APIs show high prior dominance and negative transfer.