mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Compression Method Matters: Benchmark-Dependent Output Dynamics in LLM Prompt Compression

arXiv 2603.23527 ↗First posted 6 Mar 2026cs.CLcited by 2

On the map: Efficient LLM inference and serving → Efficient reasoning and agent inference

Abstract (arXiv)

Prompt compression is often evaluated by input-token reduction, but its real deployment impact depends on how compression changes output length and total inference cost. We present a controlled replication and extension study of benchmark-dependent output dynamics under aggressive compression, covering 5,400 API calls across three benchmarks and multiple providers. To explain conflicting prior observations, we formalize instruction survival probability (Psi), a structural metric that captures whether task-critical prompt segments remain after truncation. Results show a strong benchmark effect: under r=0.3, DeepSeek exhibits severe output expansion on MBPP (56x, Psi approx 0.15) but substantially lower expansion on HumanEval (5x, Psi approx 0.72), while GPT-4o-mini is comparatively stable across benchmarks. This reconciles the apparent discrepancy between previously reported extreme explosion and lower replication effects by identifying prompt structure, not provider identity alone, as the primary moderator. We introduce the Compression Robustness Index (CRI) for cross-benchmark evaluation and show that single-benchmark assessments can produce misleading conclusions about compression safety and efficiency. To contextualize energy claims, we incorporate companion direct NVML measurements from rented RunPod GPUs and show that token savings can overstate joule savings. These findings motivate benchmark-diverse testing and structure-aware compression policies for reliable, energy-conscious LLM deployment.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Efficient reasoning and agent inference, one of 12 directions in Efficient LLM inference and serving. Builds on 44 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Mar 2026.

Builds on

44 of 55 references.

References · 44

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
  4. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  5. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  6. 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
  7. 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
  8. 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
  9. 2021Calibrate Before Use: Improving Few-Shot Performance of Language Modelscited by 1,371
  10. 2019Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLPcited by 1,242
  11. 2021Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivitycited by 1,122
  12. 2024SnapKV: LLM Knows What You are Looking for Before Generationcited by 848
32 more
  1. 2023Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formattingcited by 778
  2. 2019Green AIcited by 620
  3. 2021Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Trainingcited by 561
  4. 2023LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compressioncited by 443
  5. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  6. 2023Learning to Compress Prompts with Gist Tokenscited by 379
  7. 2023Adapting Language Models to Compress Contextscited by 350
  8. 2024LLMLingua-2: Data Distillation for Efficient and Faithful Task-Agnostic Prompt Compressioncited by 343
  9. 2021Do Prompt-Based Models Really Understand the Meaning of their Prompts?cited by 324
  10. 2023State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluationcited by 299
  11. 2022Confident Adaptive Language Modelingcited by 297
  12. 2024CRUXEval: A Benchmark for Code Reasoning, Understanding and Executioncited by 294
  13. 2023MEGA: Multilingual Evaluation of Generative AIcited by 291
  14. 2023LLMLingua: Compressing Prompts for Accelerated Inference of Large Language Modelscited by 279
  15. 2022Estimating the Carbon Footprint of BLOOM, a 176B Parameter Language Modelcited by 264
  16. 2023RECOMP: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LMs with Compression and Selective Augmentationcited by 253
  17. 2020Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learningcited by 246
  18. 2021Sustainable AI: Environmental Implications, Challenges and Opportunitiescited by 242
  19. 2023ChatGPT Beyond English: Towards a Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models in Multilingual Learningcited by 203
  20. 2021What Will it Take to Fix Benchmarking in Natural Language Understanding?cited by 200
  21. 2023In-context Autoencoder for Context Compression in a Large Language Modelcited by 190
  22. 2023Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?cited by 186
  23. 2023Compressing Context to Enhance Inference Efficiency of Large Language Modelscited by 185
  24. 2023From Words to Watts: Benchmarking the Energy Costs of Large Language Model Inferencecited by 168
  25. 2020Challenges in Deploying Machine Learning: a Survey of Case Studiescited by 151
  26. 2021The Benchmark Lotterycited by 133
  27. 2024Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Paperscited by 112
  28. 2023A Systematic Review of Green AIcited by 77
  29. 2024Prompt Compression for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 65
  30. 2023Discrete Prompt Compression with Reinforcement Learningcited by 42
  31. 2023Nugget: Neural Agglomerative Embeddings of Textcited by 19
  32. 2024Characterizing Prompt Compression Methods for Long Context Inferencecited by 18

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Prompt Compression in Production Task Orchestration: A Pre-Registered Randomized Trial
  2. 2026Beyond Retraining-Free MoE Compression: A Cost-Normalized Study of Post-Compression Adjustment
  3. 2026The Compression Paradox in LLM Inference: Provider-Dependent Energy Effects of Prompt Compression
  4. 2026Cache-Aware Prompt Compression:A Two-Tier Cost Model for LLM API Caching
  5. 2025ProCut: LLM Prompt Compression via Attribution Estimation
  6. 2025The Pitfalls of KV Cache Compression
  7. 2025Separating Constraint Compliance from Semantic Accuracy: A Novel Benchmark for Evaluating Instruction-Following Under Compression
  8. 2026Prompt Compression in the Wild: Measuring Latency, Rate Adherence, and Quality for Faster LLM Inference