Do Advanced Language Models Eliminate the Need for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering?
Open accessAbstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced Software Engineering (SE) tasks, with prompt engineering techniques enhancing their performance in code-related areas. However, the rapid development of foundational LLMs such as the non-reasoning models (GPT-4o and Claude 3.5 Sonnet) and the reasoning model o1 raises questions about the continued effectiveness of these prompt engineering techniques. This article presents an extensive empirical study that re-evaluates various prompt engineering techniques within the context of these advanced LLMs. Focusing on five representative SE tasks, i.e., code generation, code translation, program repair, code summarization, and commit message generation, we assess whether prompt engineering techniques still yield improvements with advanced models, the actual effectiveness of reasoning models compared to non-reasoning models, and whether the benefits of using these advanced models justify their increased costs. Our findings reveal that some novel prompt engineering techniques developed for earlier LLMs may provide diminished benefits or even hinder performance when applied to advanced models. In reasoning LLMs, the ability of sophisticated built-in reasoning reduces the impact of complex prompts, sometimes making simple zero-shot prompting more effective in some specific tasks. Prompt strategies that utilize execution feedback or precise task-specific guidance remain effective and are essential for improving performance on complex code-related problems. Furthermore, while reasoning models outperform non-reasoning models in tasks requiring complex reasoning, they offer minimal advantages in tasks that do not need reasoning and may incur unnecessary costs. Based on our study, we provide practical guidance for practitioners on selecting appropriate prompt engineering techniques and foundational LLMs, considering factors such as task requirements, operational costs, and environmental impact. Our work contributes to a deeper understanding of effectively harnessing advanced LLMs in SE tasks, informing future research and application development.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Many existing studies evaluate coding harnesses as complete systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear.
“yet existing work typically evaluates harnesses as monolithic systems, leaving the effectiveness of individual components unclear.”
From An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2025
The Introduction describes prior prompt-engineering approaches, and §4.1 tests the effects of removing particular features from selected approaches. Neither passage says that existing studies typically evaluate coding harnesses as monolithic systems or leave individual components’ effectiveness unclear. Searches for harnesses, monolithic evaluation, and prior component-level analysis found no passage making that claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIndividual interventions can become less useful or even harmful for stronger models, as observed for prompt-engineering strategies in software engineering.
“Individual interventions can likewise become less useful or even harmful for stronger models, as observed for prompt-engineering strategies in software engineering (Wang et al., 2026).”
From An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2026
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
Defects4J: a database of existing faults to enable controlled testing studies for Java programs
Just, R., Jalali, D., & Ernst, M. D. (2014) · Proceedings of the 2014 International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis · doi:10.1145/2610384.2628055 · Cited by 1,447 · see citing works
Self-collaboration code generation via ChatGPT
Dong, Y., Jiang, X., Jin, Z., & Li, G. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3672459 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
CoderEval: A Benchmark of Pragmatic Code Generation with Generative Pre-trained Models
Yu, H., Shen, B., Ran, D., Zhang, J., Zhang, Q., Ma, Y., Liang, G., Li, Y., Wang, Q., & Xie, T. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3623316 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Lost in Translation: A Study of Bugs Introduced by Large Language Models while Translating Code
Pan, R., Ibrahimzada, A. R., Krishna, R., Sankar, D., Wassi, L. P., Merler, M., Sobolev, B., Pavuluri, R., Sinha, S., & Jabbarvand, R. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639226 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
Automatic Semantic Augmentation of Language Model Prompts (for Code Summarization)
Ahmed, T., Pai, K. S., Devanbu, P., & Barr, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639183 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
What Makes Good In-Context Demonstrations for Code Intelligence Tasks with LLMs?
Gao, S., Wen, X.-C., Gao, C., Wang, W., Zhang, H., & Lyu, M. R. (2023) · 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00109 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Token-Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning
Han, T., Wang, Z., Fang, C., Zhao, S., Ma, S., & Chen, Z. (2024) · arXiv · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 45
- Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2023. Summarize and Generate to Back-translate: Unsupervised Translation of Programming Languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 1528-1542.
- Anonymous. 2023. LLMCarbon: Modeling the End-to-End Carbon Footprint of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.14393 (2023). · arXiv
- Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. (2021). arXiv:2107.03374 [cs.LG] · arXiv
- Xiangping Chen, Xing Hu, Yuan Huang, He Jiang, Weixing Ji, Yanjie Jiang, Yanyan Jiang, Bo Liu, Hui Liu, Xiaochen Li, et al. 2024. Deep Learning-based Software Engineering: Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13110 (2024). · arXiv
- DeepSeek-AI. 2024. DeepSeek-V2: A Strong, Economical, and Efficient Mixture-of-Experts Language Model. arXiv:2405.04434 [cs.CL] · arXiv
- Aleksandra Eliseeva, Yaroslav Sokolov, Egor Bogomolov, Yaroslav Golubev, Danny Dig, and Timofey Bryksin. 2023. From Commit Message Generation to History-Aware Commit Message Completion. In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 723-735.
- Dong Huang, Jie M Zhang, Michael Luck, Qingwen Bu, Yuhao Qing, and Heming Cui. 2023. Agentcoder: Multi-agent- based code generation with iterative testing and optimisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.13010 (2023). · arXiv
- Hamel Husain, Ho-Hsiang Wu, Tiferet Gazit, Miltiadis Allamanis, and Marc Brockschmidt. 2019. CodeSearchNet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09436 (2019). · arXiv
- Sungmin Kang, Gabin An, and Shin Yoo. 2024. A quantitative and qualitative evaluation of LLM-based explainable fault localization. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 1, FSE (2024), 1424-1446.
- Sungmin Kang, Bei Chen, Shin Yoo, and Jian-Guang Lou. 2023. Explainable automated debugging via large language model-driven scientific debugging. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.02195 (2023). · arXiv
- Geunwoo Kim, Pierre Baldi, and Stephen McAleer. 2024. Language models can solve computer tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024).
- Ryan Koo, Minhwa Lee, Vipul Raheja, Jong Inn Park, Zae Myung Kim, and Dongyeop Kang. 2023. Benchmarking cognitive biases in large language models as evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17012 (2023). · arXiv
- Nikita N Lazarev, Andrey N Zakharenko, Oleg A Korovin, Daria V Plosskaya, Vladimir S Dimitrov, Ivan V Akhripkin, Ivan V Pavlov, Ivan V Oseledets, Ivan S Barsola, Alexander A Egorov, et al. 2022. eco2AI: Carbon Emissions Tracking of Machine Learning Models as the First Step Towards Sustainable AI. Computational Mathematics and Modeling 33, 4 (2022), 1-17.
- Bo Lin, Shangwen Wang, Zhongxin Liu, Yepang Liu, Xin Xia, and Xiaoguang Mao. 2023. Cct5: A code-change-oriented pre-trained model. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 1509-1521.
- Junwei Liu, Kaixin Wang, Yixuan Chen, Xin Peng, Zhenpeng Chen, Lingming Zhang, and Yiling Lou. 2024. Large language model-based agents for software engineering: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02977 (2024). · arXiv
- Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin B. Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, Ge Li, Lidong Zhou, Linjun Shou, Long Zhou, Michele Tufano, Ming Gong, Ming Zhou, Nan Duan, Neel Sundaresan, Shao Kun Deng, Shengyu Fu, and Shujie Liu. 2021. CodeXGLUE: A Machine Learning , Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: November 2024. Benchmark Dataset for Code Understanding and Generation. CoRR abs/2102.04664 (2021). · arXiv
- Wei Ma, Daoyuan Wu, Yuqiang Sun, Tianwen Wang, Shangqing Liu, Jian Zhang, Yue Xue, and Yang Liu. 2024. Combining Fine-Tuning and LLM-based Agents for Intuitive Smart Contract Auditing with Justifications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16073 (2024). · arXiv
- Yuhong Mo, Hao Qin, Yushan Dong, Ziyi Zhu, and Zhenglin Li. 2024. Large language model (llm) ai text generation detection based on transformer deep learning algorithm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06652 (2024). · arXiv
- Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 311-318.
- David Patterson, Joseph Gonzalez, Quoc Le, Chen Liang, Lluis-Miquel Munguia, Daniel Rothchild, David So, Maud Texier, and Jeff Dean. 2021. Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.10350 (2021). · arXiv
- Zhen Qin, Rolf Jagerman, Kai Hui, Honglei Zhuang, Junru Wu, Le Yan, Jiaming Shen, Tianqi Liu, Jialu Liu, Donald Metzler, et al. 2023. Large language models are effective text rankers with pairwise ranking prompting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.17563 (2023). · arXiv
- Shuo Ren, Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Duyu Tang, Neel Sundaresan, Ming Zhou, Ambrosio Blanco, and Shuai Ma. 2020. Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297 (2020). · arXiv
- Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. 2009. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 4 (2009), 333-389.
- Baptiste Roziere, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Lowik Chanussot, and Guillaume Lample. 2020. Unsupervised translation of programming languages. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 20601-20611.
- Ankit Satpute, Noah Gießing, André Greiner-Petter, Moritz Schubotz, Olaf Teschke, Akiko Aizawa, and Bela Gipp. 2024. Can llms master math? investigating large language models on math stack exchange. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2316-2320.
- Ensheng Shi, Yanlin Wang, Wei Tao, Lun Du, Hongyu Zhang, Shi Han, Dongmei Zhang, and Hongbin Sun. 2022. RACE: Retrieval-augmented Commit Message Generation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 5520-5530. https://aclanthology.org/2022.emnlp-main.372
- Weisong Sun, Yun Miao, Yuekang Li, Hongyu Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yi Liu, Gelei Deng, Yang Liu, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models. In 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE Computer Society, 419-431.
- Xiaofei Sun, Xiaoya Li, Shengyu Zhang, Shuhe Wang, Fei Wu, Jiwei Li, Tianwei Zhang, and Guoyin Wang. 2023. Sentiment analysis through llm negotiations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01876 (2023). · arXiv
- Wei Tao, Yanlin Wang, Ensheng Shi, Lun Du, Shi Han, Hongyu Zhang, Dongmei Zhang, and Wenqiang Zhang. 2021. On the evaluation of commit message generation models: an experimental study. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, 126-136.
- Yingchen Tian, Yuxia Zhang, Klaas-Jan Stol, Lin Jiang, and Hui Liu. 2022. What makes a good commit message?. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering. 2389-2401.
- Guoqing Wang, Zeyu Sun, Jinhao Dong, Yuxia Zhang, Mingxuan Zhu, Qingyuan Liang, and Dan Hao. [n. d.]. Is It Hard to Generate Holistic Commit Message? ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology ([n. d.]).
- Yiming Wang, Zhuosheng Zhang, and Rui Wang. 2023. Element-aware Summarization with Large Language Mod- els: Expert-aligned Evaluation and Chain-of-Thought Method. In The 61st Annual Meeting Of The Association For Computational Linguistics.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824-24837.
- Frank Wilcoxon. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1, 6 (1945), 80-83. https: //doi.org/10.2307/3001968 · DOI · Paper page
- Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al. 2024. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web 27, 5 (2024), 60.
- Chunqiu Steven Xia and Lingming Zhang. 2023. Keep the Conversation Going: Fixing 162 out of 337 bugs for $0.42 each using ChatGPT. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.00385 (2023). · arXiv
- Benfeng Xu, An Yang, Junyang Lin, Quan Wang, Chang Zhou, Yongdong Zhang, and Zhendong Mao. 2023. Expert- prompting: Instructing large language models to be distinguished experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14688 (2023). · arXiv
- Yinlena Xu, Silverio Martínez-Fernández, Matias Martinez, and Xavier Franch. 2023. Energy Efficiency of Training Neural Network Architectures: An Empirical Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00967 (2023). · arXiv
- Zhen Yang, Fang Liu, Zhongxing Yu, Jacky Wai Keung, Jia Li, Shuo Liu, Yifan Hong, Xiaoxue Ma, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li. 2024. Exploring and unleashing the power of large language models in automated code translation. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 1, FSE (2024), 1585-1608.
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2022. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 (2022). · arXiv
- Zihao Yi, Jiarui Ouyang, Yuwen Liu, Tianhao Liao, Zhe Xu, and Ying Shen. 2024. A Survey on Recent Advances in LLM-Based Multi-turn Dialogue Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18013 (2024). · arXiv
- Xiao Yu, Lei Liu, Xing Hu, Jacky Wai Keung, Jin Liu, and Xin Xia. 2024. Fight Fire with Fire: How Much Can We Trust ChatGPT on Source Code-Related Tasks? arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.12641 (2024). · arXiv
- Li Zhong, Zilong Wang, and Jingbo Shang. 2024. Debug like a Human: A Large Language Model Debugger via Verifying Runtime Execution Step by Step. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024. 851-870.
- Ming Zhu, Mohimenul Karim, Ismini Lourentzou, and Daphne Yao. 2024. Semi-Supervised Code Translation Overcom- ing the Scarcity of Parallel Code Data. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 1545-1556.
- Qihao Zhu, Qingyuan Liang, Zeyu Sun, Yingfei Xiong, Lu Zhang, and Shengyu Cheng. 2024. GrammarT5: Grammar- Integrated Pretrained Encoder-Decoder Neural Model for Code. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering. 1-13.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Whose voice counts? The role of large language models in public commenting
Arsenault, A. C., & Kreps, S. (2026) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517261419341 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“However, recent studies have challenged this argument, fi nding that elaborate prompting yields few bene-fi ts — or even negative impacts — compared to simpler approaches (Wang et al., 2024).”
FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
Dai, D., Liu, M., Li, A., Cao, J., Wang, Y., Wang, C., Peng, X., & Zheng, Z. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06939 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“5 as the base model due to its strong performance in prior experiments, as reasoning models such as Deepseek-R1 often exhibit diminishing returns from external prompting because of their intrinsic chain-of-thought capabilities [42].”
An Empirical Study of Harness Design for Coding Agents
Fan, R.-Z., Zhang, Z., Ma, S., Hu, Y., Wang, S., Song, K., Liu, F., Zamani, H., & Wang, X. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.20804
“Individual interventions can likewise become less useful or even harmful for stronger models, as observed for prompt-engineering strategies in software engineering (Wang et al., 2026).”
- Authors
- Wang, G., Sun, Z., Ye, S., Gong, Z., Chen, Y., Zhao, Y., Liang, Q., & Hao, D.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
- Beijing University of Chemical Technology (CN)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
- Published
- 2026-07-17
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1-33
- ISSN
- 1049-331X (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7392
- OpenAlex
- W4415261377
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 12
- FWCI
- 16.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (62232001 and No. 62402482)
- ZTE Industry-University-Institute Cooperation Funds (IA20240723020-PO0003)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Keywords
- prompt engineering, large language models, code generation, program translation, program repair, code summarization, commit message generation, zero-shot prompting, execution feedback, LLM selection
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review