
Ultimate access to all questions.
Deep dive into the quiz with AI chat providers.
We prepare a focused prompt with your quiz and certificate details so each AI can offer a more tailored, in-depth explanation.
Which approach is most effective for getting an LLM to analyze and refactor code for performance optimization?
A
Zero-shot prompting with a very detailed instruction
B
Chain-of-thought prompting to analyze performance step-by-step
C
Role-based priming ("You are a performance engineer...")
D
Asking the model to generate 10 random refactoring ideas
Explanation:
Explanation:
Chain-of-thought prompting is the most effective approach for getting an LLM to analyze and refactor code for performance optimization because:
Step-by-step reasoning: Chain-of-thought prompting encourages the model to break down complex problems into smaller, logical steps, which is crucial for performance analysis.
Systematic analysis: Performance optimization requires identifying bottlenecks, analyzing algorithmic complexity, and considering trade-offs - all of which benefit from structured reasoning.
Better understanding: By forcing the model to articulate its thought process, it's more likely to identify subtle performance issues that might be missed with simpler prompting approaches.
Justification of changes: The step-by-step approach allows the model to explain why specific refactoring choices are made, which is important for understanding performance improvements.
While the other options have merit:
Zero-shot prompting (A): Can work but lacks the structured reasoning needed for complex performance analysis
Role-based priming (C): Helps set context but doesn't guarantee systematic analysis
Random ideas (D): Unstructured and unlikely to produce optimal, well-reasoned solutions
Chain-of-thought prompting aligns with how human performance engineers work - systematically analyzing code, identifying bottlenecks, and making incremental improvements with clear reasoning.