Prompt Compression for Large Language Models: A Survey

Leveraging large language models (LLMs) for complex natural language tasks typically requires long-form prompts to convey detailed requirements and information, which results in increased memory usage and inference costs. To mitigate these challenges, multiple efficient methods have been proposed, with prompt compression gaining significant research interest. This survey provides an overview of prompt compression techniques, categorized into hard prompt methods and soft prompt methods. First, the technical approaches of these methods are compared, followed by an exploration of various ways to understand their mechanisms, including the perspectives of attention optimization, Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT), modality integration, and new synthetic language. We also examine the downstream adaptations of various prompt compression techniques. Finally, the limitations of current prompt compression methods are analyzed, and several future directions are outlined, such as optimizing the compression encoder, combining hard and soft prompts methods, and leveraging insights from multimodality.

Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models

Recent research in Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown promising progress related to LLM alignment with human preferences. LLM-empowered decision-making systems are expected to be predictable, reliable and trustworthy, which implies being free from paradoxes or contradictions that could undermine their credibility and validity. However, LLMs still exhibit inconsistent and biased behaviour when making decisions or judgements. In this work, we focus on studying logical consistency of LLMs as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. Logical consistency ensures that decisions are based on a stable and coherent understanding of the problem, reducing the risk of erratic or contradictory outputs. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness. Additionally, we introduce a data refinement and augmentation technique that enhances the logical consistency of LLMs without sacrificing alignment to human preferences. It augments noisy and sparse pairwise-comparison annotations by estimating a partially or totally ordered preference rankings using rank aggregation methods. Finally, we show that logical consistency impacts the performance of LLM-based logic-dependent algorithms, where LLMs serve as logical operators.

Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models

Recent research in Large Language Models (LLMs) has shown promising progress related to LLM alignment with human preferences. LLM-empowered decision-making systems are expected to be predictable, reliable and trustworthy, which implies being free from paradoxes or contradictions that could undermine their credibility and validity. However, LLMs still exhibit inconsistent and biased behaviour when making decisions or judgements. In this work, we focus on studying logical consistency of LLMs as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. Logical consistency ensures that decisions are based on a stable and coherent understanding of the problem, reducing the risk of erratic or contradictory outputs. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness. Additionally, we introduce a data refinement and augmentation technique that enhances the logical consistency of LLMs without sacrificing alignment to human preferences. It augments noisy and sparse pairwise-comparison annotations by estimating a partially or totally ordered preference rankings using rank aggregation methods. Finally, we show that logical consistency impacts the performance of LLM-based logic-dependent algorithms, where LLMs serve as logical operators.

Full-Duplex ISAC-Enabled D2D Underlaid Cellular Networks: Joint Transceiver Beamforming and Power Allocation

Integrating device-to-device (D2D) communication into cellular networks can significantly reduce the transmission burden on base stations (BSs). Besides, integrated sensing and communication (ISAC) is envisioned as a key feature in future wireless networks. In this work, we consider a full-duplex ISAC- based D2D underlaid system, and propose a joint beamforming and power allocation scheme to improve the performance of the coexisting ISAC and D2D networks. To enhance spectral efficiency, a sum rate maximization problem is formulated for the full-duplex ISAC-based D2D underlaid system, which is non-convex. To solve the non-convex optimization problem, we propose a successive convex approximation (SCA)-based iterative algorithm and prove its convergence. Numerical results are provided to validate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme with the iterative algorithm, demonstrating that the proposed scheme outperforms state-of-the-art ones in both communication and sensing performance.

MR-BEN: A Comprehensive Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making, largely based on the step-by-step chain-of-thought reasoning processes. However, it has been increasingly challenging to evaluate the reasoning capability of LLMs. Concretely, existing outcome-based benchmarks begin to saturate and become less sufficient to monitor the progress. To this end, we present a process-based benchmark MR-BEN that demands a meta reasoning skill, where LMs are asked to locate and analyse potential errors in automatically generated reasoning steps. MR-BEN is a comprehensive benchmark comprising 5,975 questions collected from human experts, covering various subjects such as physics, chemistry, logic, coding, and more. Through our designed metrics for assessing meta-reasoning on this benchmark, we identify interesting limitations and weaknesses of current LLMs (open-source and closed-source models). For example, open-source models are seemingly comparable to GPT-4 on outcome-based benchmarks, but they lag far behind on our benchmark, revealing the underlying reasoning capability gap between them. Our dataset and codes are available on https://randolph-zeng.github.io/Mr-Ben.github.io/.

Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

A Multi-module Robust Method for Transient Stability Assessment against False Label Injection Cyberattacks

The success of deep learning in transient stability assessment (TSA) heavily relies on high-quality training data. However, the label information in TSA datasets is vulnerable to contamination through false label injection (FLI) cyberattacks, resulting in degraded performance of deep TSA models. To address this challenge, a Multi-Module Robust TSA method (MMR) is proposed to rectify the supervised training process misguided by FLI in an unsupervised manner. In MMR, a supervised classification module and an unsupervised clustering module are alternatively trained to improve the clustering friendliness of representation leaning, thereby achieving accurate clustering assignments. Leveraging the clustering assignments, we construct a training label corrector to rectify the injected false labels and progressively enhance robustness and resilience against FLI. However, there is still a gap on accuracy and convergence speed between MMR and FLI-free deep TSA models. To narrow this gap, we further propose a human-in-the-loop training strategy, named MMR-HIL. In MMR-HIL, potential false samples can be detected by modeling the training loss with a Gaussian distribution. From these samples, the most likely false samples and most ambiguous samples are re-labeled by a TSA experts guided bi-directional annotator and then subjected to penalized optimization, aimed at improving accuracy and convergence speed. Extensive experiments indicate that MMR and MMR-HIL both exhibit powerful robustness against FLI in TSA performance. Moreover, the contaminated labels can also be effectively corrected, demonstrating superior resilience of the proposed methods.

Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

TOAD: Task-Oriented Automatic Dialogs with Diverse Response Styles

In light of recent advances in large language models (LLMs), the expectations for the next generation of virtual assistants include enhanced naturalness and adaptability across diverse usage scenarios. However, the creation of high-quality annotated data for Task-Oriented Dialog (TOD) is recognized to be slow and costly. To address these challenges, we introduce Task-Oriented Automatic Dialogs (TOAD), a novel and scalable TOD dataset along with its automatic generation pipeline. The TOAD dataset simulates realistic app context interaction and provide a variety of system response style options. Two aspects of system response styles are considered, verbosity level and users' expression mirroring. We benchmark TOAD on two response generation tasks and the results show that modelling more verbose or responses without user expression mirroring is more challenging.

Unlocking Structure Measuring: Introducing PDD, an Automatic Metric for Positional Discourse Coherence

Recent large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in aligning generated text with user intentions across various tasks. When it comes to long-form text generation, there has been a growing interest in generation from a discourse coherence perspective. However, existing lexical or semantic metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, BertScore cannot effectively capture the discourse coherence. The development of discourse-specific automatic evaluation methods for assessing the output of LLMs warrants greater focus and exploration. In this paper, we present a novel automatic metric designed to quantify the discourse divergence between two long-form articles. Extensive experiments on three datasets from representative domains demonstrate that our metric aligns more closely with human preferences and GPT-4 coherence evaluation, outperforming existing evaluation methods.