Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Measures cost-accuracy tradeoffs in LLM prompting strategies, highlighting implications for effective evaluations.
Current LLM reasoning strategy evaluations emphasize accuracy while ignoring cost, despite cost varying by 10× or more across configurations. We present {CostOpt}, a framework for cost-aware strategy evaluation, and {CostBench 500}, a curated benchmark of 500 static procedural tasks constructed via architecture-mixed pre-screening to eliminate zero-shot selection bias. We conduct a factorial experiment: 5 prompting strategies × 4 models at temp=1 × 500 tasks × 3 seeds = 30,000 primary runs (all models at temp=1) plus 15,000 supplementary ablations (Claude at temp=0, Anthropic-native tool schemas). Total cost: $441, overall accuracy: 85.9%. All numbers from a single canonical evaluation pipeline. To ensure fair evaluation, we explicitly decouple static procedural tasks from interactive, multi-step environments. Key findings: (1) strategy choice is the dominant cost lever (Plan-and-Execute: 6.0 calls, $0.029/run, 32.2s vs.\ Zero-Shot: 1.0 call, $0.002/run, 4.1s); (2) on static tasks, single-shot Structured Reasoning Format achieves 89.6% at $0.007/run---1.3 pp higher accuracy than Plan-and-Execute at 3.9$×$ lower cost, but this ordering completely inverts on multi-step interactive tasks where Plan-and-Execute is Pareto-optimal; (3) Structured Reasoning Format + Claude 4.5 Opus achieves 95.9%---the best single static configuration---with Claude temp=0 near-identical (mean Δ < 0.8 pp); (4) GPT-5 leads tool-calling (90.9%), GPT-5-mini leads zero-shot (88.5%); (5) Claude tool-calling with native schemas trails GPT by 5--10 pp; (6) temperature has negligible effect on Claude accuracy. We emphasize that structural token multipliers (e.g., the 15.9× Plan-and-Execute overhead) are more durable metrics than absolute dollar costs, which remain transient. This API-only study explicitly excludes open-weights models, as their fixed CapEx and utilization-dependent OpEx require fundamentally different Pareto frontier calculations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sittiphol Phanvilai (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: