REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references
RLMOpt: Adaptive Prompt Optimization via Recursive Language Models
T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read RLMOpt claims that letting a language-model agent control the prompt-search policy, with a deterministic harness enforcing scoring and selection, beats a fixed search procedure on all four benchmarks and never falls below its seed prompt.
desk verdict A well-documented system paper whose headline robustness statistic is partly guaranteed by construction and whose central attribution claim is explicitly conceded; still deserves serious peer review, but the authors should be pushed to isolate the adaptive policy from the harness. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the recursive language model (RLM) agent acting as the search policy in a tool-based environment, coupled to a deterministic harness. An RLM is a language model that operates over a programmatic environment and can recursively invoke sub-models; here it writes short programs that call tools for introspection, failure analysis, sub-LM synthesis, candidate evaluation, and stopping. The harness executes all scoring, computes per-field composite scores, enforces Pareto-frontier selection, a per-field regression floor, and a 1.65-standard-error significance gate, and runs a final polish stage, so no language-model decision can trade one output field against another or commit a noisily worse candidate. This separation is what lets the agent explore adaptively while preserving reproducibility and the no-regression property.
What would settle it
Keep the harness, budget, task LM, optimizer LM, and seed fixed, and replace the agent's adaptive controller with a fixed search procedure that proposes the same kinds of edits from the same failure-analysis tools; if the fixed procedure matches or beats RLMOpt's held-out scores, the adaptive policy is not the source of the gains. A second check: on a task already at the model's prompting ceiling, verify that neither optimizer improves over the seed—the headroom claim predicts this directly.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On its own terms, RLMOpt's central discovery is that replacing a hand-coded outer search loop with a recursive language model agent—one that writes code in a REPL to call inspection, diagnosis, synthesis, and evaluation tools—produces a more efficient and more reliable prompt optimizer than a fixed evolutionary search procedure. In matched single-seed comparisons the agent-led system obtains the best held-out score on all four benchmarks and leads the four-task mean (0.610 against 0.589); across 11 benchmark–seed repetitions it wins 9 and never returns a prompt that scores below its seed, while the fixed baseline falls below its seed twice. The paper also reports that optimization gains are governed by seed headroom rather than budget: near-ceiling tasks show no improvement from either optimizer, and a synthetic diagnostic shows that a larger budget can even hurt held-out accuracy by overfitting a small validation set.
Load-bearing premise
The measured advantage is attributed to the adaptive language-model-driven search policy, but the compared systems also differ in scoring, selection, regression floor, significance gating, polish, and an extra optimizable component, so if those harness parts, not the policy, drive the gains, the central design claim is unsubstantiated.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If RLMOpt is right, the object a language model controls in prompt optimization should include the search trajectory itself, not just candidate text.
- Optimization effort should be allocated by measured seed headroom: tasks near the model's prompting ceiling should be left alone, and budgets on high-headroom tasks should be spent on reliable convergence rather than exhaustive search.
- Prompt size can drop sharply without losing performance—the optimized prompts are 27–79% of the baseline's length—suggesting concise, rule-based prompts are often enough.
- Multi-turn agent systems should be optimized as component maps (system prompt, tool descriptions, demonstrations) rather than as single strings.
- A no-regression floor plus statistical gating can make single-run optimization dependable on small validation sets, though the paper notes validation overfitting remains a risk when evaluation data is tiny.
Reading between the lines
- Because RLMOpt and the fixed baseline differ in several components at once (composite scoring, Pareto selection, no-regression floor, significance gate, polish stage, and an optimizable demonstrations component), the paper's evidence supports the complete system; whether the adaptive policy itself carries the gain remains an open question that a policy-only ablation would settle.
- The never-below-seed record is partly by construction on validation—the harness cannot commit a regressing candidate—so the interesting empirical claim is that the same floor transfers to held-out test scores; a reader should look at per-seed test comparisons rather than the validation guarantee.
- If headroom is the binding constraint, one practical extension is a cheap pre-search headroom estimate (for example, a few contrasting prompt variants on a small sample) to decide whether optimization is worth running at all.
- The uncalibrated stopping policy suggests that a learned stop rule based on remaining per-field headroom, rather than a fixed budget fraction, could reduce run-to-run variance and the observed large-budget overfitting.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper introduces RLMOpt, a prompt optimizer in which a recursive language model (RLM) agent controls the outer search procedure—deciding which tools to call, which candidates to evaluate, how to allocate budget, and when to stop—while a deterministic harness owns objective scoring, Pareto-based selection, and regression constraints. The method is evaluated on four benchmarks (Chia, HotpotQA, IFBench-2025, and BFCL multi-turn) against GEPA. The authors report that at a single matched seed RLMOpt obtains the best held-out score on all four benchmarks and improves the four-task mean from 0.589 to 0.610; across 11 matched benchmark-seed comparisons it wins 9, never falls below its seed on test while GEPA does so twice, and uses fewer downstream rollouts. They also argue that optimization gains are governed by seed-prompt headroom rather than by search budget. The paper is careful to disclose that the experiments establish the complete-system performance and do not isolate the contribution of the adaptive search policy.
Significance. If the attribution concern were resolved, this would be a useful contribution to prompt optimization: it demonstrates a concrete instance of an LM-driven search controller with a deterministic safety harness, and it reports unusually transparent matched comparisons with paired standard errors, per-seed tables, full budget accounting, verbatim optimized prompts in Appendix B, and a reproducible record schema in Appendix F. The paper also makes a falsifiable headroom-based prediction about when optimization helps. However, the central design claim—that the adaptive LM-driven search policy, rather than the accompanying harness components, is responsible for the observed gains—is not established by the current experiments, and the paper explicitly concedes this in Section 7. The 'never underperforms its seed' statistic is also partly guaranteed by construction. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main conclusion, so the manuscript needs additional work before its central claim can be accepted.
major comments (3)
- [Section 5.2 and Algorithm 1 (steps 8–12)] The central claim—that an LM-driven adaptive search policy is responsible for the reported gains over GEPA—is not supported by the experiments as designed. Section 7 states that "Our experiments therefore establish the performance of the complete system, but do not isolate the contribution of each component," and this concession applies exactly to the headline comparison. RLMOpt differs from GEPA simultaneously in the adaptive policy, composite per-field scoring (Eq. 2), Pareto-based selection (Eq. 3), the no-regression floor (Eq. 4), the 1.65-SE significance gate, the final polish stage (Appendix E), and, on BFCL multi-turn, an optimizable demonstrations component that the GEPA wrapper cannot expose. Any combination of these components could produce the +0.021 four-task mean advantage, which is small relative to the reported per-run standard errors. The BFCL column is the clearest case: the largest single margin (+0.033) occurs on the only benchmark where the two systems edit different object spaces, so even the system-level comparison is not apples-to-apples there. To support the abstract's and conclusion's attribution of the gains to the adaptive policy, the authors should either provide an ablation that holds the harness, budget, task LM, and optimizer LM fixed while replacing the adaptive policy with a fixed search procedure, or explicitly rescope the paper's central claim to the complete RLMOpt system.
- [Conclusion versus Table 3] The statistic "never produced a prompt that underperformed its seed" is partly guaranteed by construction and should not be presented as independent empirical evidence of search reliability. Algorithm 1 always includes the seed prompt in the final candidate set, computes validation composite scores for all candidates, forms the Pareto frontier, and selects the candidate with the highest composite score. Consequently, the returned prompt cannot have a validation composite below the seed's validation composite. The test-level observation that no RLMOpt run fell below its seed is a meaningful empirical fact, but the presentation in Section 5.2 ("The final row counts runs in which the optimized prompt scored below the seed prompt it started from") and in the Conclusion conflates a design guarantee on validation with an observed property on test. The paper should explicitly state that the validation-level no-regression property is by construction, and should separate the test-level no-regression result from the harness guarantee when using this statistic as evidence of reliability.
- [Conclusion] The conclusion states without qualification that "RLMOpt achieves the best held-out score on every benchmark," but this is only true for the single-seed matched comparison in Table 2. The multi-seed means in Table 3 show that GEPA has the higher Chia mean (0.630 vs 0.622) and that the IFBench-25 means overlap within one standard deviation. The abstract correctly qualifies the claim as "In a matched comparison at a single seed," but the conclusion drops this qualification. The conclusion should either be restricted to the single-seed comparison or replaced by the multi-seed summary: RLMOpt leads on three of four benchmark means and on the overall mean, but not on all four benchmarks.
minor comments (4)
- [Section 4] The sentence justifying the single-seed protocol says the no-regression floor makes a single seed "particularly appropriate for RLMOpt"; this is circular, since the floor is a property of the method being evaluated rather than a reason to avoid averaging over seeds. The multi-seed analysis in Section 5.2 is the right response, and the single-seed justification should be removed or rephrased.
- [Section 6.2] The negative-control results for the ceiling regime are reported only as approximate scores (0.91 and 0.77) without naming the exact benchmark split, model, or seed; this makes the negative-control claim hard to verify. Please specify the setup or move the numbers to the appendix with full configuration details.
- [Table 5] The BFCL-mt row for RLMOpt(light) reports wall-clock time but marks tokens as "—"; please explain why token counts are unavailable for that run, since the other rows report them.
- [Section 5.4] The prompt-size comparison in Table 6 is only reported at seed 7, but the abstract states the 27–79% range without this qualification; please add the seed restriction to the abstract or provide size ranges across the multi-seed runs.
Circularity Check
The matched head-to-head against GEPA is external and not circular, but two supporting claims reduce to design choices: the 'never underperformed its seed' statistic is a guaranteed artifact of final selection, and the 'headroom determines gains' conclusion restates a post-hoc regime classification.
-
self definitional
[Algorithm 1, steps 9–12 (Section 3.5); Section 4; Section 5.2 and Table 3]
"Let C contain the seed, committed candidates, the claimed best, and the polish candidates. Compute per-field validation scores for every p∈C. F←ParetoFrontier(C). p⋆←argmax_{p∈F} S(p). ... This is particularly appropriate for RLMOpt, whose no-regression floor ensures that each run either improves upon the seed prompt or preserves its performance. ... Across all 11 runs RLMOpt never returns a prompt below its seed, while GEPA does twice."
Because the seed is always a member of C and the returned p* maximizes the composite over the validation Pareto frontier, the selected prompt's validation composite cannot be below the seed's. The field floor (Eq. 4) and the 1.65-SE significance gate further restrict which candidates can enter C. Thus 'never underperformed its seed' is a designed invariant of the harness's final selection, not an independent empirical discovery. The paper nevertheless presents the zero 'Runs below seed' count as evidence of reliability in the Abstract and Table 3, effectively counting the construction as a result.
-
renaming known result
[Section 6.2; Contribution 4; Section 7]
"Our results indicate that the key factor is the amount of prompt-accessible headroom left by the seed. ... We observe two distinct regimes: tasks where the task LM can exploit substantial remaining headroom, and tasks where the seed is already near the model's prompting ceiling. ... The relevant quantity is not the search budget itself, but the exploitable headroom remaining in the seed prompt."
The regime assignment is post hoc: a task is labeled 'near the ceiling' exactly when neither optimizer improved the seed, and 'headroom' tasks are those with observed gains. The conclusion that gains are determined primarily by headroom therefore restates the classification criterion: high observed gain is what qualifies a task as having headroom. The paper's own Section 7 notes that all four benchmarks 'were selected to leave exploitable headroom,' so the headline headroom finding is built into benchmark selection. The synthetic diagnostic in Appendix C gives the mechanism some controlled support, but the general claim that gains are determined by headroom rather than search budget is a renaming of the definitional fact that a seed already at the ceiling leaves no room for improvement.
full rationale
The central empirical comparison—RLMOpt versus GEPA on held-out test examples with matched seeds, splits, task LM, and scoring—is not circular: the benchmark scores are external, example-level measurements, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction in that head-to-head. The circularity burden is confined to supporting interpretive claims. First, the 'never underperformed its seed' reliability statistic is a designed invariant of Algorithm 1's final selection, because the seed is always in the candidate set and the returned prompt maximizes the validation composite over the Pareto frontier; reporting the zero below-seed count as evidence of reliability counts that construction as an empirical outcome. Second, the headroom analysis assigns tasks to regimes from observed gains and then concludes that gains are determined by headroom, which is a post-hoc relabeling of the fact that near-ceiling seeds show little improvement. The BFCL demonstrations-confound and the lack of component ablation are attribution limitations, not circular steps, and the paper candidly acknowledges them in Section 7. Overall, the core benchmark result stands, but two load-bearing interpretive claims reduce to their own definitions, giving the paper a modest circularity score.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (6)
- field_floor (f_floor) =
0.05
- significance gate k (select_significance_k) =
1.65
- noise band =
1.5 SE
- stopping targets =
0.85 field mean, 0.02 composite delta, 80% budget
- polish demo counts =
3, 8, 15
- search budget B =
500 (heavy), 200 (light)
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Validation composite score is a reliable proxy for the held-out test score of the selected prompt.
- standard math Paired candidate differences on a validation minibatch are approximately normal, justifying the 1.65-SE one-sided commit gate.
- domain assumption Matched evaluation (same seed, splits, task LM, held-out examples, temperature=0) makes per-example paired standard errors valid for comparing the two methods.
- domain assumption The gpt-5.1 agent executes the stated skill policy faithfully enough that the observed outcomes can be attributed to the RLMOpt architecture rather than to this specific proprietary agent model.
- domain assumption The four headroom-selected benchmarks, two near-ceiling negative controls, and the two-run synthetic diagnostic are representative enough to support the headroom mechanism claim.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of RLMOpt: Adaptive Prompt Optimization via Recursive Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OPJZCS6A
@misc{pith2026260810471,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: RLMOpt: Adaptive Prompt Optimization via Recursive Language Models},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OPJZCS6A}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10471}
}
read the original abstract
Prompt optimizers automate the search for prompts that improve language-model performance, but existing methods rely on a predefined optimization procedure: the algorithm determines which candidates to explore and how the search progresses, while the language model generates or refines prompt proposals. We introduce RLMOpt, a prompt optimizer that makes the search policy itself language-model-driven through a recursive language model (RLM). The RLM agent operates over a tool-based environment, inspecting task information, analyzing failures, generating candidates, allocating evaluation budget, and deciding when to stop. A deterministic harness complements the agent by enforcing objective scoring, Pareto-based selection, and regression constraints. We evaluate RLMOpt across four benchmarks spanning structured clinical information extraction (Chia), multi-hop question answering (HotpotQA), verifiable instruction following (IFBench-2025), and multi-turn tool-calling agents (BFCL). In a matched comparison at a single seed, RLMOpt obtains the best held-out score on all four benchmarks and leads the four-task mean (0.610 against 0.589 for GEPA). Repeating each benchmark across seeds yields 11 matched benchmark-seed comparisons, in which RLMOpt outperforms GEPA in 9 cases. Across all 11 runs, it never produced a prompt that underperformed its seed, whereas GEPA fell below its starting point twice. It is also more efficient, achieving these results with fewer search rollouts while producing prompts that are 27-79% the size of those produced by GEPA. Our results further show that optimization gains are determined primarily by the headroom available in the seed prompt, rather than by the search budget. Efficient optimization therefore depends on reaching the available headroom reliably and with minimal search
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
L. Agrawal, O. Khattab, S. Tan, et al. GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.19457, 2025
arXiv 2025
-
[2]
K. Opsahl-Ong et al. Optimizing Instructions and Demonstrations for Multi-Stage Language Model Programs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11695, 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[3]
C. Yang et al. Large Language Models as Optimizers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03409, 2023
arXiv 2023
-
[4]
Y . Zhou, A. I. Muresanu, Z. Han, et al. Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers. InICLR, 2023
work page 2023
-
[5]
M. Yuksekgonul, F. Bianchi, J. Boen, et al. TextGrad: Automatic “Differentiation” via Text. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.07496, 2024
arXiv 2024
-
[6]
C. Fernando, D. Banarse, H. Michalewski, S. Osindero, and T. Rocktäschel. Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement via Prompt Evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16797, 2023
arXiv 2023
-
[7]
Q. Guo, R. Wang, J. Guo, et al. Connecting Large Language Models with Evolutionary Algorithms Yields Powerful Prompt Optimizers. InICLR, 2024. arXiv:2309.08532
arXiv 2024
-
[8]
M. Deng, J. Wang, C.-P. Hsieh, et al. RLPrompt: Optimizing Discrete Text Prompts with Reinforcement Learning. InEMNLP, 2022. arXiv:2205.12548
arXiv 2022
Show all 41 references
-
[9]
Lester, R
B. Lester, R. Al-Rfou, and N. Constant. The Power of Scale for Parameter-Efficient Prompt Tuning. InEMNLP, 2021. arXiv:2104.08691
2021 arXiv
-
[10]
S. Hu, C. Lu, and J. Clune. Automated Design of Agentic Systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08435, 2024. 13
2024 arXiv
-
[11]
Khattab, A
O. Khattab, A. Singhvi, P. Maheshwari, et al. DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into State-of-the-Art Pipelines.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03714, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[12]
A. L. Zhang, T. Kraska, and O. Khattab. Recursive Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24601, 2025
2025 arXiv
-
[13]
Y . Yang, Z. Gong, W. Huang, et al. SkillOpt: Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.23904, 2026 (Microsoft Research)
2026 arXiv
-
[14]
Shao et al
Z. Shao et al. DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024
2024 arXiv
-
[15]
Christiano, J
P. Christiano, J. Leike, T. B. Brown, et al. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Prefer- ences. InNeurIPS, 2017
2017
-
[16]
Ouyang, J
L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, et al. Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback. InNeurIPS, 2022
2022
-
[17]
Shinn, F
N. Shinn, F. Cassano, E. Berman, et al. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[18]
S. Yao, J. Zhao, D. Yu, et al. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. InICLR, 2023
2023
-
[19]
Wang et al
G. Wang et al. V oyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[20]
F. Yan, H. Mao, C. C.-J. Ji, et al. Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard. https://gorilla. cs.berkeley.edu/blogs/8_berkeley_function_calling_leaderboard.html, 2024
2024
-
[21]
Zheng, W.-L
L. Zheng, W.-L. Chiang, Y . Sheng, et al. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. InNeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks, 2023
2023
-
[22]
Z. Yang, P. Qi, S. Zhang, et al. HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering. InEMNLP, 2018
2018
-
[23]
Zhou et al
J. Zhou et al. Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911, 2023
2023 arXiv
-
[24]
F. Kury, A. Butler, C. Yuan, et al. Chia, a Large Annotated Corpus of Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria.Scientific Data, 7(1), 2020
2020
-
[25]
Benchmark suite (58-verifier registry), 2025
IFBench: Instruction Following with an Extended Verifiable-Constraint Registry. Benchmark suite (58-verifier registry), 2025. 14 A The Optimizer’s Skill Prompt The agent is conditioned by a fixedskill prompt, the analogue of a reflective optimizer’s meta-prompt, which states t...
2025
-
[26]
Call describe_task() + dataset_overview() + peek_examples() a single time each, then STOP – they are static
ORIENT ONCE – FIRST PASS ONLY. Call describe_task() + dataset_overview() + peek_examples() a single time each, then STOP – they are static. [...]
-
[27]
Read describe_task()[’known_rules’] (rules promoted from earlier runs of THIS task) AND scratchpad_read(...)
INHERIT prior learning. Read describe_task()[’known_rules’] (rules promoted from earlier runs of THIS task) AND scratchpad_read(...). Apply them; don’t re-derive what a prior run proved
-
[28]
BASELINE, then DIAGNOSE from FAILURES, not random examples. Run the seed once, then write your candidate from ERROR-DRIVEN evidence: describe_failure_patterns (aggregates failures across ALL evaluated examples – this is how you use the whole train set, not a 3-example skim) + ...
-
[29]
Make ONE targeted change, then run_candidate(prompt) WITHOUT example_ids (the host’s representative minibatch)
EDIT with intent, then SCORE representatively. Make ONE targeted change, then run_candidate(prompt) WITHOUT example_ids (the host’s representative minibatch). NEVER score on your hand-picked failures – that subset anti-correlates with the real full-val selection
-
[30]
Build only on REAL_GAIN
TRUST the verdict. Build only on REAL_GAIN. On WITHIN_NOISE do NOT commit or re-run to confirm – attack a DIFFERENT failure mode. Bigger is NOT better
-
[31]
When a change earns a REAL_GAIN, record the durable, transferable rule via scratchpad_add(kind="rule", ...) – it is promoted to the cross-run library so future runs start ahead
CAPTURE what worked. When a change earns a REAL_GAIN, record the durable, transferable rule via scratchpad_add(kind="rule", ...) – it is promoted to the cross-run library so future runs start ahead. # Structure rules (apply to every candidate you commit) **Bigger is NOT better...
-
[32]
You are a helpful assistant
**Open with one crisp framing sentence** stating the task domain and the expected output shape. Do not start with "You are a helpful assistant" or generic preambles
-
[33]
**Section style depends on ‘style‘.** [...]
-
[34]
bigger is not better
**Preserve every schema field name VERBATIM** from the task harness’s ‘output_schema‘. Do not rename, alias, translate, or invent new field names. Same for any enum values or fixed strings. [...] [...] # Anti-hallucination rules - example_ids you pass to run_candidate or peek_...
2003
-
[35]
output nothing
Identify explicit constraints: - Read the instruction carefully and list every explicit constraint on counts, formats, exact phrases, keywords, ordering, and positions. - Treat requirements such as "output nothing", "return None", "leave blank", "do not respond", "respond only...
-
[36]
output nothing
Handle empty or placeholder responses: - If the instruction requires no meaningful content (for example, "output nothing", "leave the response blank", "do not answer"), output an empty response or the exact placeholder specified (such as the single token "None"), and nothing e...
-
[37]
start with
Plan the response structure: - Decide the structure of your response so that all count constraints are satisfied exactly (no more, no fewer items, words, characters, sentences, or lines than requested). 20 - Align required positions ("start with ...", "end with ...", "the nth ...
-
[38]
- Include every required keyword or phrase verbatim and exclude every forbidden keyword or phrase, respecting case sensitivity when specified
Match formats and keywords exactly: - Follow any specified format precisely, including symbols, spacing, digit patterns, letter case, punctuation, and template structure. - Include every required keyword or phrase verbatim and exclude every forbidden keyword or phrase, respect...
-
[39]
- Do NOT define concepts, explain laws, or provide background information unless the instruction explicitly asks for an explanation
Avoid non-response content: - When the instruction asks for a constructed string, list, pattern, label, or sequence, output that content directly, without explanations or topic summaries. - Do NOT define concepts, explain laws, or provide background information unless the inst...
-
[40]
- Do not relax or ignore any stated constraint; choose the interpretation that best satisfies all explicit requirements without adding new assumptions
Resolve apparent conflicts conservatively: - If constraints seem to conflict, obey the most explicit, machine-checkable constraints first (counts, exact strings, formats, positions). - Do not relax or ignore any stated constraint; choose the interpretation that best satisfies ...
-
[41]
no explanation
Verify before responding: - Before you output anything, mentally check that your response satisfies all stated count, format, keyword, ordering, positional, and "no explanation" constraints. - If any constraint is not satisfied, adjust the response in your head and only then o...
2025
Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.