Michael Färber

Cornelius Kummer, Lena Jurkschat, Michael Färber et al.

With the wide adoption of language models for IR -- and specifically RAG systems -- the latency of the underlying LLM becomes a crucial bottleneck, since the long contexts of retrieved passages lead large prompts and therefore, compute increase. Prompt compression, which reduces the size of input prompts while aiming to preserve performance on downstream tasks, has established itself as a cost-effective and low-latency method for accelerating inference in large language models. However, its usefulness depends on whether the additional preprocessing time during generation is offset by faster decoding. We present the first systematic, large-scale study of this trade-off, with thousands of runs and 30,000 queries across several open-source LLMs and three GPU classes. Our evaluation separates compression overhead from decoding latency while tracking output quality and memory usage. LLMLingua achieves up to 18% end-to-end speed-ups, when prompt length, compression ratio, and hardware capacity are well matched, with response quality remaining statistically unchanged across summarization, code generation, and question answering tasks. Outside this operating window, however, the compression step dominates and cancels out the gains. We also show that effective compression can reduce memory usage enough to offload workloads from data center GPUs to commodity cards, with only a 0.3s increase in latency. Our open-source profiler predicts the latency break-even point for each model-hardware setup, providing practical guidance on when prompt compression delivers real-world benefits.

Florian Kelber, Matthias Jobst, Yuni Susanti et al.

Scientific knowledge discovery increasingly relies on large language models, yet many existing scholarly assistants depend on proprietary systems with tens or hundreds of billions of parameters. Such reliance limits reproducibility and accessibility for the research community. In this work, we ask a simple question: do we need bigger models for scientific applications? Specifically, we investigate to what extent carefully designed retrieval pipelines can compensate for reduced model scale in scientific applications. We design a lightweight retrieval-augmented framework that performs task-aware routing to select specialized retrieval strategies based on the input query. The system further integrates evidence from full-text scientific papers and structured scholarly metadata, and employs compact instruction-tuned language models to generate responses with citations. We evaluate the framework across several scholarly tasks, focusing on scholarly question answering (QA), including single- and multi-document scenarios, as well as biomedical QA under domain shift and scientific text compression. Our findings demonstrate that retrieval and model scale are complementary rather than interchangeable. While retrieval design can partially compensate for smaller models, model capacity remains important for complex reasoning tasks. This work highlights retrieval and task-aware design as key factors for building practical and reproducible scholarly assistants.

Klaudia Thellmann, Bernhard Stadler, Michael Färber

Machine-translated benchmark datasets reduce costs and offer scale, but noise, loss of structure, and uneven quality weaken confidence. What matters is not merely whether we can translate, but also whether we can measure and verify translation reliability at scale. We study translation quality in the EU20 benchmark suite, which comprises five established benchmarks translated into 20 languages, via a three-step automated quality assurance approach: (i) a structural corpus audit with targeted fixes; (ii) quality profiling using a neural metric (COMET, reference-free and reference-based) with translation service comparisons (DeepL / ChatGPT / Google); and (iii) an LLM-based span-level translation error landscape. Trends are consistent: datasets with lower COMET scores exhibit a higher share of accuracy/mistranslation errors at span level (notably HellaSwag; ARC is comparatively clean). Reference-based COMET on MMLU against human-edited samples points in the same direction. We release cleaned/corrected versions of the EU20 datasets, and code for reproducibility. In sum, automated quality assurance offers practical, scalable indicators that help prioritize review -- complementing, not replacing, human gold standards.