pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.02352 · v1 · submitted 2026-03-03 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.SE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

An Initial Exploration of Contrastive Prompt Tuning to Generate Energy-Efficient Code

Sophie Weidmann , Fernando Castor
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 16:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.SE
keywords contrastive prompt tuningenergy-efficient codelarge language modelsgreen software developmentcode generationparameter-efficient fine-tuningsoftware sustainability
0
0 comments X

The pith

Contrastive prompt tuning improves code accuracy in large language models but delivers inconsistent energy efficiency gains across models and languages.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tests whether contrastive prompt tuning can steer large language models toward generating code that uses less energy while remaining correct. The technique pairs examples of efficient and inefficient code to train the model to tell them apart, then updates only a small set of prompt parameters instead of the entire model. Experiments cover Python, Java, and C++ problems on three different models. Accuracy rose steadily for two of the models, yet measured energy savings appeared only in some languages and for simpler tasks. The results indicate that the approach offers a low-cost way to address energy waste in AI-generated software, but the benefits do not appear uniformly.

Core claim

Contrastive prompt tuning, which combines contrastive learning to distinguish efficient from inefficient code with prompt tuning for low-cost adaptation, produces consistent accuracy gains on two of three tested models while energy-efficiency improvements vary by model, programming language, and task complexity.

What carries the argument

Contrastive Prompt Tuning (CPT), a method that uses contrastive examples of efficient versus inefficient code to update a small number of prompt parameters so the model learns to favor lower-energy outputs.

If this is right

  • Large language models can be guided toward greener code without retraining their full parameter sets.
  • Energy improvements depend on the base model, target language, and problem difficulty, so results must be checked case by case.
  • The method supports green software development goals by reducing computational overhead in AI-generated programs.
  • Prompt-only updates offer a cheaper alternative to full fine-tuning when the goal is efficiency rather than new capabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar contrastive setups could be applied to other resource costs such as memory use or latency.
  • Combining CPT with static code analysis tools might strengthen the labeling step and improve generalization.
  • Testing on larger or more recent models would reveal whether the observed variability shrinks or grows with scale.

Load-bearing premise

That reliable labels exist for efficient versus inefficient code and that the tuned prompts will produce measurable energy savings on new, unseen programming tasks.

What would settle it

Running the same set of coding problems with both baseline and CPT-tuned models, then measuring actual energy consumption on identical hardware and finding no statistically significant difference in energy use for the tuned outputs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.02352 by Fernando Castor, Sophie Weidmann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In prompt tuning, the soft prompt is optimized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the experimental design and configu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of inefficient (left) and efficient (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Although LLMs are capable of generating functionally correct code, they also tend to produce less energy-efficient code in comparison to human-written solutions. As these inefficiencies lead to higher computational overhead, they are in direct conflict with Green Software Development (GSD) efforts, which aim to reduce the energy consumption of code. To support these efforts, this study aims to investigate whether and how LLMs can be optimized to promote the generation of energy-efficient code. To this end, we employ Contrastive Prompt Tuning (CPT). CPT combines Contrastive Learning techniques, which help the model to distinguish between efficient and inefficient code, and Prompt Tuning, a Parameter-Efficient Fine Tuning (PEFT) approach that requires only a fraction of the cost of traditional fine tuning. This study evaluates CPT on Python, Java and C++ coding problems across three different models to provide a comprehensive evaluation. The method achieves consistent improvements in code accuracy for two models but efficiency gains vary by model, language and task complexity, indicating that improvements are not uniformly reliable.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Contrastive Prompt Tuning (CPT), which integrates contrastive learning to distinguish energy-efficient from inefficient code with parameter-efficient prompt tuning, as a method to optimize LLMs for generating energy-efficient code. It evaluates the approach on coding problems in Python, Java, and C++ across three models, claiming consistent accuracy gains for two models alongside variable energy-efficiency improvements that depend on model, language, and task complexity.

Significance. If the energy-labeling protocol proves reliable, the work offers a practical, low-cost demonstration that contrastive objectives can steer prompt-tuned LLMs toward both functional correctness and lower energy use, directly supporting Green Software Development goals. The emphasis on PEFT is a practical strength. However, the reported non-uniform efficiency results and absence of quantitative metrics currently limit the strength of the central claim and its generalizability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Methods / Experimental Setup: The protocol used to assign 'efficient' versus 'inefficient' labels to contrastive training pairs is not described (profiler, hardware platform, number of runs, normalization, or statistical threshold). Because the contrastive loss directly depends on correct ordering of these pairs, any labeling noise >10-15% would systematically degrade prompt updates and readily explain the observed non-uniform efficiency gains across models and languages.
  2. [Results] Results / Abstract: No quantitative accuracy deltas, energy-consumption reductions (e.g., joules or percentage), error bars, or statistical tests are reported, nor are explicit baseline comparisons (standard prompting, other PEFT methods) provided with numbers. This absence prevents assessment of effect size and undermines the claim of 'consistent improvements.'
  3. [Analysis] Analysis: Post-hoc stratification by task complexity is presented without a pre-specified analysis plan or correction for multiple comparisons, making it difficult to determine whether the observed variation is a genuine interaction or an artifact of exploratory slicing.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Phrases such as 'consistent improvements' and 'variable efficiency gains' should be accompanied by the actual numeric values and confidence intervals rather than qualitative descriptors alone.
  2. [Method] Notation: The precise form of the contrastive loss (e.g., InfoNCE, margin-based) and how the prompt tokens are updated should be stated explicitly, preferably with a short equation.
  3. [Introduction] References: Prior work on energy measurement of generated code and on contrastive fine-tuning for code should be cited to situate the contribution.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the emphasis on methodological transparency, quantitative rigor, and careful interpretation of exploratory analyses. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods / Experimental Setup: The protocol used to assign 'efficient' versus 'inefficient' labels to contrastive training pairs is not described (profiler, hardware platform, number of runs, normalization, or statistical threshold). Because the contrastive loss directly depends on correct ordering of these pairs, any labeling noise >10-15% would systematically degrade prompt updates and readily explain the observed non-uniform efficiency gains across models and languages.

    Authors: We agree that full details on the labeling protocol are necessary for reproducibility and to evaluate potential noise. The full manuscript includes energy measurements via a standard profiler on a fixed hardware platform with repeated executions, but we will add an expanded subsection in Methods explicitly describing the profiler, hardware specifications, number of runs per code sample (10), normalization approach (energy normalized by token count), and labeling threshold (median split with minimum 15% difference). We will also add a brief discussion of possible labeling noise sources and how they may contribute to the observed variability in efficiency gains. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] Results / Abstract: No quantitative accuracy deltas, energy-consumption reductions (e.g., joules or percentage), error bars, or statistical tests are reported, nor are explicit baseline comparisons (standard prompting, other PEFT methods) provided with numbers. This absence prevents assessment of effect size and undermines the claim of 'consistent improvements.'

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and results summary lack explicit numerical values. The full paper contains tables reporting accuracy and energy figures, but we will revise the abstract to include concrete deltas (e.g., accuracy gains of 4-8% on two models), report energy reductions in joules and percentages where observed, add error bars to all figures, include statistical tests (paired t-tests with p-values), and provide explicit numerical comparisons against standard prompting and other PEFT baselines such as LoRA. These changes will allow direct evaluation of effect sizes and better support the claims of consistent accuracy improvements. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Analysis] Analysis: Post-hoc stratification by task complexity is presented without a pre-specified analysis plan or correction for multiple comparisons, making it difficult to determine whether the observed variation is a genuine interaction or an artifact of exploratory slicing.

    Authors: The stratification by task complexity was exploratory, intended to probe sources of the observed variability rather than test pre-specified hypotheses. We will revise the manuscript to explicitly label this analysis as post-hoc, apply a multiple-comparisons correction (Bonferroni), and add a dedicated limitations paragraph discussing the exploratory nature and the need for future confirmatory studies. We maintain that reporting these patterns is valuable for highlighting non-uniformity, but we will adjust the language to avoid overstating interaction effects. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical CPT evaluation is self-contained

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical application of Contrastive Prompt Tuning to code generation tasks, reporting accuracy and energy measurements across Python, Java, C++ and three models. No equations, parameter fits, or derivations are presented that reduce a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. The contrastive labels are treated as external inputs obtained via measurement; the reported gains (or lack thereof) are evaluated against held-out tasks rather than being forced by the labeling process itself. No self-citation chains or uniqueness theorems are invoked as load-bearing premises. The work therefore remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach assumes that energy labels for code examples can be obtained reliably and that contrastive signals transfer to unseen problems. No free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Energy consumption of generated code can be measured consistently and used as a reliable contrastive signal
    Central to the contrastive learning setup described in the abstract

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5475 in / 1145 out tokens · 20358 ms · 2026-05-15T16:34:58.432623+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Radu Apsan, Vincenzo Stoico, Michel Albonico, Rudra Dhar, Karthik Vaid- hyanathan, and Ivano Malavolta. 2026. Generating Energy-Efficient Code via Large-Language Models - Where are we now?. InProceedings of ICSE’2026. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. accepted for publication

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Nghi D. Q. Bui, Yijun Yu, and Lingxiao Jiang. 2021. Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning for Code Retrieval and Summarization via Semantic-Preserving Trans- formations. InProceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. ACM, 511–521

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Tom Cappendijk, Pepijn de Reus, and Ana Oprescu. 2024. Generating Energy- efficient code with LLMs. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.10599 arXiv:2411.10599 [cs]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.10599 2024

  4. [4]

    Mark Chen et al . 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. (2021). http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. 2020. A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations. In Proceedings of the ICML’2020 (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 119). PMLR, 1597–1607

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Thomas Dohmke, Marco Iansiti, and Greg Richards. 2023. Sea Change in Software Development: Economic and Productivity Analysis of the AI-Powered Developer Lifecycle. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.15033 arXiv:2306.15033 [econ]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.15033 2023

  7. [7]

    Mingzhe Du, Luu Anh Tuan, Yue Liu, Yuhao Qing, Dong Huang, Xinyi He, Qian Liu, Zejun Ma, and See kiong Ng. 2025. Afterburner: Reinforcement Learning Facilitates Self-Improving Code Efficiency Optimization. arXiv:2505.23387 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.23387

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Daniel Erhabor, Sreeharsha Udayashankar, Meiyappan Nagappan, and Samer Al-Kiswany. 2025. Measuring the Runtime Performance of C++ Code Written by Humans using GitHub Copilot. InProceedings of the 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’25). Association for Computing Machinery

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Hadsell, S

    R. Hadsell, S. Chopra, and Y. LeCun. 2006. Dimensionality Reduction by Learning an Invariant Mapping. InProceedings of CVPR’2006, Vol. 2. 1735–1742

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Nihal Jain et al. 2023. ContraCLM: Contrastive Learning For Causal Language Model. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). ACL, Toronto, Canada, 6436–6459

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Prannay Khosla, Piotr Teterwak, Chen Wang, Aaron Sarna, Yonglong Tian, Phillip Isola, Aaron Maschinot, Ce Liu, and Dilip Krishnan. 2020. Supervised Contrastive Learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 33. Curran Associates, Inc., 18661–18673

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Le-Khac, Graham Healy, and Alan F

    Phuc H. Le-Khac, Graham Healy, and Alan F. Smeaton. 2020. Contrastive Repre- sentation Learning: A Framework and Review. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05113 arXiv:2010.05113

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Brian Lester, Rami Al-Rfou, and Noah Constant. 2021. The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning. http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08691 arXiv:2104.08691

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Christophe Leys, Christophe Ley, Olivier Klein, Philippe Bernard, and Laurent Licata. 2013. Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology49, 4 (2013), 764–766

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Xiaonan Li, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Xipeng Qiu, Hang Zhang, Bolun Yao, Weizhen Qi, Daxin Jiang, Weizhu Chen, and Nan Duan. 2022. CodeRetriever: Unimodal and Bimodal Contrastive Learning for Code Search. http://arxiv.org/ abs/2201.10866 arXiv:2201.10866

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Haokun Liu, Derek Tam, Mohammed Muqeeth, Jay Mohta, Tenghao Huang, Mohit Bansal, and Colin Raffel. 2022. Few-Shot Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning is Better and Cheaper than In-Context Learning.CoRRabs/2205.05638 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and Lingming Zhang. 2023. Is your code generated by ChatGPT really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation(NIPS ’23). Article 943

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    OpenAI. [n. d.]. OpenAI o3-mini. https://openai.com/index/openai-o3-mini/

    work page

  19. [19]

    Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Urs Hölzle, Quoc V

    David A. Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Urs Hölzle, Quoc V. Le, Chen Liang, Lluis- Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David R. So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. 2022. The Carbon Footprint of Machine Learning Training Will Plateau, Then Shrink. Computer55, 7 (2022), 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2022.3148714

    work page doi:10.1109/mc.2022.3148714 2022

  20. [20]

    Cheng Peng, Xi Yang, Kaleb E Smith, Zehao Yu, Aokun Chen, Jiang Bian, and Yonghui Wu. 2024. Model tuning or prompt Tuning? a study of large language models for clinical concept and relation extraction.Journal of Biomedical Infor- matics153 (May 2024), 104630. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104630

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104630 2024

  21. [21]

    Gustavo Pinto, Fernando Castor, and Yu David Liu. 2014. Understanding energy behaviors of thread management constructs. InProceedings of the OOPSLA’2014. ACM, 345–360

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Ruchir Puri et al. 2021. CodeNet: A Large-Scale AI for Code Dataset for Learning a Diversity of Coding Tasks. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2105.12655 arXiv:2105.12655

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.12655 2021

  23. [23]

    Lola Solovyeva, Sophie Weidmann, and Fernando Castor. 2025. AI-Powered, But Power-Hungry? Energy Efficiency of LLM-Generated Code. InProceedings of FORGE’2025. arXiv, Ottawa, Canada. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2502.02412

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.02412 2025

  24. [24]

    Tina Vartziotis, Ippolyti Dellatolas, George Dasoulas, Maximilian Schmidt, Florian Schneider, Tim Hoffmann, Sotirios Kotsopoulos, and Michael Keckeisen. 2024. Learn to Code Sustainably: An Empirical Study on LLM-based Green Code Generation. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.03344 arXiv:2403.03344 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Siddhant Waghjale, Vishruth Veerendranath, Zhiruo Wang, and Daniel Fried. 2024. ECCO: Can We Improve Model-Generated Code Efficiency Without Sacrificing Functional Correctness?. InProceedings of EMNLP’2024. Miami, Florida, USA, 15362–15376. https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.859/

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Xiaodan Xu, Chao Ni, Xinrong Guo, Shaoxuan Liu, Xiaoya Wang, Kui Liu, and Xiaohu Yang. 2025. Distinguishing LLM-Generated from Human-Written Code by Contrastive Learning.ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol.34, 4, Article 91 (April 2025), 31 pages. doi:10.1145/3705300

    work page doi:10.1145/3705300 2025

  27. [27]

    Maxwell Zeff. 2024. OpenAI’s o3 suggests AI models are scaling in new ways — but so are the costs. https://techcrunch.com/2024/12/23/openais-o3-suggests-ai- models-are-scaling-in-new-ways-but-so-are-the-costs/

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Yuhao Zhang, Shiqi Wang, Haifeng Qian, Zijian Wang, Mingyue Shang, Linbo Liu, Sanjay Krishna Gouda, Baishakhi Ray, Murali Krishna Ramanathan, Xiaofei Ma, and Anoop Deoras. 2024. CodeFort: Robust Training for Code Generation Models. InProceedings of EMNLP’2024. ACL, 5262–5277

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Qinkai Zheng et al. 2023. CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X. InProceedings of KDD’2023

    work page 2023