Randomized trial assesses context compression methods for fact retention in agentic sessions, suggesting optimal strategies for improved results.
Context compression is widely used to cut the token cost of long LLM sessions, but most evaluation measures only downstream task accuracy and studies single-shot prompts. We ask a narrower, more diagnostic question in the multi-turn agentic regime: when a compressor shrinks a session, do the specific facts a later turn depends on survive? We release a reproducible, judge-free benchmark that plants facts with known ground-truth answers in synthetic agentic sessions and measures token savings against deterministic fact retention, decoupled from any model (and thus immune to pretraining contamination). Using it, we run a controlled comparison (n=900, 3 seeds) of message-level relevance selection (query-aware, training-free) against token/sentence-level self-information pruning (Selective Context) at matched savings. Selective Context is perfectly lossless (100% retention, zero between-seed variance) across the entire savings axis up to 89%; message-level selection is far worse (56% aggregate). Rather than stop at this negative result, we decompose the gap. Holding the selection signal fixed and moving from message- to sentence-level granularity recovers +63.6 points of paraphrase retention (12.5% -> 76.1%); switching the signal from lexical to embedding recovers a further +20.4 points (76.1% -> 96.5%). The counterintuitive finding is that the winning method is query-agnostic: query-awareness is not the differentiator - granularity and semantic matching are, and self-information pruning is near-optimal precisely because answer-bearing spans in this task are high-surprisal. We characterize exactly when a retention metric and a downstream-accuracy metric agree, pre-empt the fact-planting circularity objection, and release the corpus generator, harness, and a public leaderboard so others can reproduce and extend the frontier. Code: https://github.com/nac7/ctx-gate. Benchmark dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nac7/tool-output-faithfulness (CC-BY-4.0, DOI 10.57967/hf/9671).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nachiket Lele (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: