CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Generative Caching for Structurally Similar Prompts and Responses

Chakraborty, Sarthak, Nath, Suman, Zhang, Xuchao, Bansal, Chetan, Gupta, Indranil·2025·Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38
DOI 10.52202/085713-0162
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.52202/085713-0162

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Metadata

Authors
Chakraborty, S., Nath, S., Zhang, X., Bansal, C., & Gupta, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38
Publisher
Neural Information Processing Systems Foundation, Inc. (NeurIPS)
Published
2025
Pages
5172-5199
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.52202/085713-0162
OpenAlex
W7196989620
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
prompt caching, large language models, prompt efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review