# Request-Level Energy Attribution for Batched LLM Serving

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.00026 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00026/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Serving systems and request scheduling, one of 12 directions in Efficient LLM inference and serving.
- Builds on 16 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- Efficient LLM inference and serving / [Serving systems and request scheduling](https://mlsanity.com/inference/serving-systems-and-request-scheduling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [LongBench: A Bilingual, Multitask Benchmark for Long Context Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14508/) (2023)
- [Energy and Policy Considerations for Deep Learning in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02243/) (2019)
- [Green AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1907.10597/) (2019)
- [Carbon Emissions and Large Neural Network Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2104.10350/) (2021)
- [Towards the Systematic Reporting of the Energy and Carbon Footprints of Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2002.05651/) (2020)
- [Measuring the Carbon Intensity of AI in Cloud Instances](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05229/) (2022)
- [The ML.ENERGY Benchmark: Toward Automated Inference Energy Measurement and Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06371/) (2025)
- [TokenPowerBench: Benchmarking the Power Consumption of LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.03024/) (2025)
- [LLMCO2: Advancing Accurate Carbon Footprint Prediction for LLM Inferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02950/) (2024)
- [From Prompts to Power: Measuring the Energy Footprint of LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.05597/) (2025)
- [Empirical Measurements of AI Training Power Demand on a GPU-Accelerated Node](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08602/) (2024)
- [EnergAt: Fine-Grained Energy Attribution for Multi-Tenancy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05647/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Who Pays for the KV Cache? Attributing Shared AI Inference Spend Across Kubernetes and LLM Provider Bills](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.24991/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Batched LLM serving improves throughput but complicates energy accounting. GPU power telemetry is aggregate, whereas sustainability reporting, chargeback, and workload analysis often require request-level energy charges. Existing inference-energy benchmarks report model-, phase-, or token-level energy, and recent carbon-accounting work motivates Shapley fairness conceptually. Neither provides measured request-level ground truth, so how far the accounting rules used in practice deviate from a fair allocation has remained unknown. We present JouleShare, an attribution framework with two components. An offline harness establishes this ground truth by replaying request subsets under vLLM with a reproducible protocol, integrating GPU power telemetry, and computing exact Shapley energy for each request. A lightweight calibration model, JCalib, then learns to predict Shapley shares from cheap request features for use at serving time. Across 16 model/workload runs, token-proportional attribution differs from exact Shapley by 0.440 normalized L1 on average under static batching and by 0.458 under continuous batching, a gap that reproduces across three data-center GPUs. JCalib reduces this error to 0.116 under static batching and 0.177 under continuous batching, below even a standalone-measurement baseline that is unavailable online, while preserving exact batch-energy efficiency. Sampled Shapley extends the measured reference to larger group sizes, where the gap persists and a single offline calibration remains the most accurate deployable rule. The results show that token attribution is not a reliable proxy for marginal energy under batched execution, and that measured Shapley ground truth can calibrate low-cost request features toward fairer attribution.