Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive abilities in solving various natural language processing tasks and are now widely offered as services. LLM services enable users to accomplish tasks without requiring specialized knowledge, simply by paying service providers. However, numerous providers offer various LLM services with variations in pricing, latency, and performance. These factors are also affected by different invocation methods, such as the choice of context and the use of cache, which lead to unpredictable and uncontrollable service cost and quality. Consequently, utilizing various LLM services invocation methods to construct an effective (cost-saving, low-latency and high-performance) invocation strategy that best meets task demands becomes a pressing challenge. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of methods help LLM services to be invoked efficiently. Technically, we define the problem of constructing an effective LLM services invocation strategy, and based on this, propose a unified LLM service invocation framework. The framework classifies existing methods into four categories: input abstraction, semantic cache, solution design, and output enhancement, which can be used separately or jointly during the invocation life cycle. We discuss the methods in each category and compare them to provide valuable guidance for researchers. Finally, we emphasize the open challenges in this domain and shed light on future research.

Knowledge Editing (KE) has gained increasing attention, yet current KE tasks remain relatively simple. Under current evaluation frameworks, many editing methods achieve exceptionally high scores, sometimes nearing perfection. However, few studies integrate KE into real-world application scenarios (e.g., recent interest in LLM-as-agent). To support our analysis, we introduce a novel script-based benchmark – ScEdit (Script-based Knowledge Editing Benchmark) – which encompasses both counterfactual and temporal edits. We integrate token-level and text-level evaluation methods, comprehensively analyzing existing KE techniques. The benchmark extends traditional fact-based (“What”-type question) evaluation to action-based (“How”-type question) evaluation. We observe that all KE methods exhibit a drop in performance on established metrics and face challenges on text-level metrics, indicating a challenging task. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/asdfo123/ScEdit.