Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 75 references

M2R2: Mixture of Multi-Rate Residuals for Efficient Transformer Inference

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a parallel accelerated residual stream, trained to match slow residual states at scaled layer indices, improves early alignment enough to accelerate dynamic compute, self-speculative decoding, and MoE expert loading…

desk verdict A genuinely novel framing for residual-velocity modulation, applied to three useful inference scenarios, but the empirical reporting is too thin to verify the headline speedups and the attribution to the velocity mechanism remains untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.02040 v1 pith:KDUG44MT submitted 2025-02-04 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Nikhil Bhendawade , Mahyar Najibi , Devang Naik , Irina Belousova This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords residualstreamsvelocityearlyexitingspeculativedecodingmixtureofexpertsahead-of-timeexpertloadinginferenceaccelerationadaptivecomputation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that transformer residual streams evolve at a measurable 'velocity'—the rate of directional change per layer—and that this velocity is suboptimally slow in standard dense models after the first few layers. It proposes Mixture of Multi-rate Residuals (M2R2), which pairs the normal slow residual stream with a parallel, low-rank accelerated stream that runs at a faster rate $R$ and is trained to match slow residual states at scaled layer indices. Because the accelerated stream aligns with final-layer representations earlier and more smoothly than the linear projection used by distance-based early exiting, it can drive early-exit decisions, generate speculative tokens, and predict future MoE expert choices. The empirical payoff is better generation-quality-versus-speedup trade-offs than CALM, LITE, Skip Decoding, and Mixture-of-Depths; up to 2.8x speedup on MT-Bench in lossless self-speculative decoding; and up to 2.9x speedup in MoE decoding with ahead-of-time expert loading.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of residual streams $(h, p)$: the slow stream $h$ runs through the full base model while the accelerated stream $p$ runs through low-rank accelerator adapters, transforming at a rate $R$ relative to layer index. The defining identity is Eq. (4), which states that the slow residual transformation across many layers can be approximated by the faster transformation across fewer layers, with $p$ initialized from $h$ at each exit gate. The accelerated stream is trained with the distillation loss of Eq. (5), matching each $p^i$ to the slow residual at layer $(i-E_{j(i)})R_i + E_{j(i)}$, and optionally with cross-entropy at early-exit gates. This single replica—fast, low-rank, and sharing the slow stream's KV cache—carries all downstream uses: ARLA routers read residual dynamics from it, speculative decoding samples tokens from it, and MoE routing uses it to predict experts two layers ahead.

What would settle it

A direct check: train M2R2 on a 32-layer model and measure the average cosine similarity between accelerated states at early exit gates (say, layers 8, 16, 24) and the final slow residual, comparing against a trained linear early-exit head; if the accelerated states are not consistently closer to the final residual than the linear projection at the same gates on a held-out set, the central alignment claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the slowness of residual evolution is a trainable artifact rather than a fixed property of depth. A dedicated $k$-layer model distilled to match the residual states of a $4k$-layer model at scaled indices changes its residual direction faster and reaches higher alignment with the final state than the base model does at the same layer, as shown in Figure 2b. M2R2 generalizes this observation by inserting accelerator adapters in parallel with the base layers, giving a second residual stream that can run at rate $R$ (e.g., $2\times$, $4\times$, or $N/k$) and is trained with the loss of Eq. (5) to approximate the slow stream at scaled layer indices. This accelerated stream replaces the linear, context-independent mapping $T$ used by traditional early exits (Eq. 4), yielding smoother and higher similarity with final-layer residuals at early gates. The paper then demonstrates that the same alignment mechanism transfers to three inference settings: ARLA-based early exiting, self-speculative decoding with the first $k$ layers as draft generator, and ahead-of-time expert preloading in MoE models.

Load-bearing premise

The whole method hinges on the premise that a faster residual stream, trained with the specific distillation loss in Eq. (5), can produce representations close enough to the slow stream's final-layer states at scaled layer indices that exit decisions, speculative tokens, and expert predictions remain accurate; the paper gives empirical evidence on selected models and tasks but no theoretical guarantee and no ablation of the distillation target choice.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dynamic compute can be driven by residual velocity rather than depth: with better early alignment, a larger fraction of tokens become eligible to exit at shallow gates, improving quality-speedup trade-offs on instruction-tuned models where distance-based methods degrade.
  • Lossless self-speculative decoding is achievable without a separate draft model: accelerated residuals from the first few layers generate candidates that pass verification at higher acceptance rates than DEED and Medusa, up to 2.8x speedup on MT-Bench.
  • MoE inference in memory-constrained devices can hide expert-load latency: predicting experts two layers ahead with accelerated residuals and overlapping transfers with computation yields up to 2.9x speedup over on-demand loading.
  • The accelerated stream can share the slow stream's KV cache with minimal alignment loss, which materially reduces memory overhead for the dual-stream design.
  • Because only low-rank adapters and small routers are trained, the method can be applied to existing pretrained dense and MoE models without pretraining.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The 'residual velocity' framing suggests a more general principle: any transformer implicitly defines a family of residual trajectories at different rates, and distillation between trajectories at scaled indices might be useful beyond token prediction—for example, in early rejection for retrieval, confidence estimation, or adaptive generation length.
  • The shared-KV-cache result hints that an accelerated stream does not need its own contextual memory; a natural extension would be to make the accelerated stream fully parameter-free (e.g., a learned interpolation of slow residuals) and test whether the accuracy holds, which could remove the adapter FLOP overhead entirely.
  • The method's success depends on the empirical observation that residual change is front-loaded in pretrained transformers; if a model family had uniform residual change per layer, the rate-based approximation would likely lose its advantage over distance-based methods, which could be tested by applying M2R2 to such a model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. M2R2 proposes to augment a transformer's slow residual stream with an accelerated residual stream that runs at a higher rate R, trained via a distillation loss to match slow residual states at scaled layer indices. This accelerated stream is paired with two downstream mechanisms: ARLA, an attention-based early-exit router that uses residual dynamics within an exit interval, and Ahead-of-Time (AoT) expert loading for MoE models, where accelerated residuals predict future expert selections so that expert transfers can overlap with computation. The paper evaluates the framework on dynamic compute, self-speculative decoding, and MoE inference using Phi-3, Gemma-7B, and OLMoE, reporting better quality/speedup trade-offs than distance-based early-exit methods, up to 2.8x speedups on MT-Bench, and up to 2.9x speedups with AoT expert loading. The central construction is Eq. (4), which asserts that a faster residual transformation over fewer layers can approximate the slow residual transformation over many layers, with Eq. (5) providing the rate-dependent distillation objective.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, M2R2 would be a useful contribution to efficient LLM inference: it offers a single-model alternative to draft-model speculative decoding, shows a concrete mechanism for early-exit alignment, and proposes a plausible way to hide MoE expert-loading latency. The paper deserves credit for pairing the main method with a training objective, for evaluating across dense and sparse architectures, and for including FLOPs-reduction considerations (Section 2.5) and a shared KV-cache design. However, the work is purely empirical, no code or checkpoints are released, and the central mechanism is validated only through aggregate alignment plots and end-to-end speedup figures. The lack of controlled ablations and numerical reporting means the significance can be assessed only conditionally; the claimed speedups are plausible but not yet demonstrated to the standard expected for a systems paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.4, Eq. (5); Section 3.1.1, Figure 6a] The central claim that multi-rate residual velocity causes the downstream improvements is not isolated by any controlled ablation. The accelerated stream is trained with a distillation loss that explicitly matches slow residuals at scaled layer indices, so the cosine-alignment improvement in Figure 6a partly reflects the training objective. There is no experiment that varies the rate R while holding the parameter budget and the distillation target fixed, and no comparison where a distance-based projection or an early-exit head is trained with the same objective and the same added capacity. Without such a control, the speedups in Figures 7–9 could be attributed to the extra trainable components (accelerator adapters, ARLA routers, task-specific heads) rather than to the multi-rate mechanism itself.
  2. [Section 3.1, Figures 7–9] The paper's headline results rest on plots without numerical tables, error bars, seeds, or run counts. Figure 7 reports quality/speedup trade-offs as line and scatter plots with no numeric values; Figure 8 reports acceptance rates and speedups as bars with no tabulated numbers; Figure 9 reports hit rates and latency with the same issue. The abstract and conclusion state speedups of 2.8x and 2.9x, but the reader cannot verify these numbers, the variance across runs, or whether the differences are significant. For an empirical systems paper, this reporting is insufficient regardless of the method's correctness.
  3. [Section 3.3, footnote 6, Figure 11] The MoE AoT result is obtained under a simulated memory hierarchy: on an A100, GPU DRAM is treated as HBM and disk as LBM, with HBM capacity artificially limited to 8GB. The paper claims a 2.9x speedup over traditional expert loading, but the transfer latency and bandwidth characteristics of disk-to-DRAM are quite different from those of a real LBM-to-HBM hierarchy, especially for on-device accelerators mentioned in the introduction. The footnote acknowledges this limitation, and the section itself states that the optimal pre-loading extent is left for future work. A concrete measurement on the target hardware, or at least a sensitivity analysis varying HBM capacity and LBM latency, is needed before the 2.9x claim can be evaluated.
  4. [Section 2.3.1, Figure 4b; Section 3.2, Figure 8] The contribution of the ARLA router is not isolated from the contribution of the accelerated residual stream. Figure 4b shows that ARLA has a higher ROC area than a linear router on the last residual state, but the downstream dynamic-compute and speculative-decoding results always use ARLA together with accelerated residuals. The paper does not report a version with accelerated residuals plus a standard early-exit classifier, nor a version with the slow residual stream plus ARLA. Without these ablations, it is unclear how much of the quality/speedup gain comes from the residual-velocity mechanism and how much from the improved exit classifier.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 1, last paragraph before contributions] There is a duplicated word: 'enables the the advancement of multiple tokens'.
  2. [Appendix A.2] The word 'sub-otpimal' should be 'suboptimal'; the same typo appears in the preceding paragraph.
  3. [Section 2.5] The phrase 'using a slicker stream on alignment' appears to be a typo for 'slimmer stream'; also, the FLOPs formula for Medusa is written as 'scaling with d2 + dv5', which should be clarified.
  4. [Figures 7, 9 and 12] The 'Quality Metric' axis label in Figure 7 is not informative; the caption should state the specific metric (e.g., GPT-4 judgment score, EM, or Rouge-LSum) for each panel. Figures 9 and 12 would also benefit from numeric values next to the plotted points.
  5. [Section 2.4, Eq. (5)] The summation index in the distillation loss is written as i=1 to EJ-1, but the notation for the matched slow layer, ((i−Ej(i))·Ri)+Ej(i), is hard to parse; a concrete example with an explicit rate and gate indices would help.
  6. [Appendix B] The prompt shown in Appendix B is for the dynamic-compute GPT-4 evaluation, but the paper does not include the corresponding prompts for the speculative-decoding or MoE evaluations; adding those would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Minor circularity in the motivating residual-velocity experiment; main speedup and quality claims are independently measured.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.1, Figure 2b experiment and discussion]
    "we distilled the residual streams from the larger model by incorporating a distillation loss [52] between the residual state at layer i of the smaller model and the residual state at layer 4 × i of the larger model. As shown in Figure 2b the smaller model demonstrates a significantly faster rate of change in residual streams... This experimental setup, which modifies only the rate of change in residual streams while keeping other factors constant, suggests that dense transformers, trained with a fixed number of layers, may inherently possess a slow residual transformation bias."

    The 'accelerated' small model is not an independent probe: the distillation loss directly regresses the small model's layer-i residual onto the base model's layer-4i residual. A successful fit forces p_{i+1} - p_i to track h_{4i+4} - h_{4i}, i.e., four layers of residual change per layer. Reporting that this model has a 'significantly faster rate of change' is therefore reporting the training target as if it were an experimental discovery. The conclusion that dense transformers 'inherently possess a slow residual transformation bias' is not established by this setup; the 4x velocity is imposed by the objective, not found in the base model's dynamics. This step is motivational rather than load-bearing for the main results, since the headline speedups come from held-out evaluation.

full rationale

The central construction (Eq. 4) is an ansatz: an accelerated residual stream is trained, via Eq. (5)'s distillation loss, to approximate slow residuals at scaled layer indices. Consequently, alignment evidence partly reflects the training objective, and the Figure 2b motivation experiment is circular because the 4x rate is baked into the distillation target. However, the paper's headline claims do not reduce to this construction: generation quality versus wall-clock speedup is measured on held-out sets (Koala, Self-Instruct, WizardLM, MT-Bench) against external baselines (LITE/CALM, MoD, Skip Decode, Medusa, DEED, LookAhead Decoding), speculative acceptance rates are measured during decoding, and MoE expert hit rates and latencies are measured on MT-Bench with an A100. The only self-citation, reference [9], supports a peripheral point about non-autoregressive speculation and is not load-bearing. The lack of a controlled ablation isolating the alignment term from the added adapters and ARLA routers is an experimental-confound concern, not an equation-level circularity. Overall, the derivation chain has one self-definitional motivational step but the principal empirical results are independent, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claim rests on several chosen hyperparameters (rates, ranks, latent dimensions) and on the empirical assumption that early cosine alignment transfers to speedups. The paper does not provide a theoretical analysis or external validation of the invented components, and no code is released, so the contribution is not independently checkable from the paper alone.

free parameters (8)
  • residual rate R = 2 (MoE), N/k with k=4 (speculative decoding), various (dynamic compute)
    The rate at which accelerated residuals evolve relative to slow residuals is chosen by hand per use case, not derived from first principles.
  • candidate speculation length gamma = 3
    Fixed for speculative decoding experiments; no ablation on gamma is shown.
  • number of drafting layers k = 4
    Set to balance drafting overhead and acceptance rate; stated as 'typically set' in Section 2.3.2.
  • accelerator adapter rank Rp = 8 (from ablation)
    Rank chosen based on alignment plateau in Figure 10a; no principled selection.
  • ARLA latent dimension d_s = 64
    Chosen to be 'significantly smaller' than hidden dimension; no sensitivity analysis.
  • loss weights alpha0, alpha1 = not specified
    Weights in Eq. 5 are not reported; they directly affect the trained adapters.
  • top-k attended tokens for accelerated stream = 64
    Chosen for FLOPs optimization; no ablation on k.
  • number of accelerated attention heads = 8 (vs 32 slow)
    Chosen as a trade-off between alignment and FLOPs, justified by Figure 12b.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Residual stream evolution can be decomposed into layer transformations as in Eq. (1)
    A definitional identity for transformers with residual connections.
  • domain assumption The final-layer residual state is well approximated by a faster transformed stream as in Eq. (4)
    Core assumption that the accelerated stream can imitate the slow stream at a scaled index; validated only empirically on a few datasets.
  • domain assumption Early alignment (cosine similarity) is a sufficient proxy for downstream generation quality and acceptance rate
    Used throughout to justify dynamic exit and speculation; not theoretically grounded.
  • domain assumption A100 GPU with software-limited 8GB HBM simulates a resource-constrained MoE environment
    The reported 2.9x speedup depends on this simulation; real hardware may behave differently.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 judge scores reflect generation quality
    Used for instruction-following evaluations; known to have biases, mitigated by swapping order, but still an assumption.
invented entities (4)
  • Accelerated residual stream p
    purpose: A second residual stream that evolves faster than the base stream, used for early exit, draft tokens, and expert speculation.
    A new computational stream introduced in Eq. (2); its utility is only shown in the paper's own experiments, no external validation or release.
  • Accelerator adapters
    purpose: Low-rank parallel adapters that transform the accelerated stream.
    A new trainable component; no code released.
  • ARLA (Accelerated Residual Latent Attention)
    purpose: A latent-domain attention router to decide early exit based on residual dynamics.
    A new router mechanism; evaluated only in the paper's experiments.
  • Ahead-of-Time (AoT) expert loading
    purpose: Pre-loading speculated experts based on accelerated residuals to overlap memory transfer with compute.
    A new inference scheduling strategy; evaluated only in the simulated HBM/LBM setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of M2R2: Mixture of Multi-Rate Residuals for Efficient Transformer Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KDUG44MT

@misc{pith2026250202040,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: M2R2: Mixture of Multi-Rate Residuals for Efficient Transformer Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KDUG44MT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.02040}
}
read the original abstract

Residual transformations enhance the representational depth and expressive power of large language models (LLMs). However, applying static residual transformations across all tokens in auto-regressive generation leads to a suboptimal trade-off between inference efficiency and generation fidelity. Existing methods, including Early Exiting, Skip Decoding, and Mixture-of-Depth address this by modulating the residual transformation based on token-level complexity. Nevertheless, these approaches predominantly consider the distance traversed by tokens through the model layers, neglecting the underlying velocity of residual evolution. We introduce Mixture of Multi-rate Residuals (M2R2), a framework that dynamically modulates residual velocity to improve early alignment, enhancing inference efficiency. Evaluations on reasoning oriented tasks such as Koala, Self-Instruct, WizardLM, and MT-Bench show M2R2 surpasses state-of-the-art distance-based strategies, balancing generation quality and speedup. In self-speculative decoding setup, M2R2 achieves up to 2.8x speedups on MT-Bench, outperforming methods like 2-model speculative decoding, Medusa, LookAhead Decoding, and DEED. In Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architectures, integrating early residual alignment with ahead-of-time expert loading into high-bandwidth memory (HBM) accelerates decoding, reduces expert-switching bottlenecks, and achieves a 2.9x speedup, making it highly effective in resource-constrained environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.02040 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Traditional early exiting approaches approximate the final residual state with context [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) As residual streams propagate through the model, the directional shifts in the residuals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Multi-rate Residuals Framework: Slow residual stream of base model is accompanied [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effectiveness of ARLA in capturing residual dynamics for early exiting decisions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ahead-of-Time Expert Loading: M2R2 accelerated residual stream predicts experts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Alignment of early exited tokens and trainable parameter overhead associated with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Effectiveness of M2R2 in Speculative Decoding settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Effectiveness of M2R2 for speculative expert pre-loading on sparse MoE Transformers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) Adapter Rank Ablation on Dialog Summarization (b) Expert speculation miss Rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A100 GPU trace demonstrating overlap of computation and expert transfer between LBM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FLOPs overhead of M2R2 and optimization based on Attention head pruning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    Dai and C

    Z. Dai and C. Tan. Dynamic attention for sequence modeling. In Proceedings of the 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [9]

    Speculative streaming: Fast llm inference without auxiliary models

    Nikhil Bhendawade, Irina Belousova, Qichen Fu, Henry Mason, Mohammad Rastegari, and Mahyar Najibi. Speculative streaming: Fast llm inference without auxiliary models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11131, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone, 2024

    Marah Abdin et al. Phi-3 technical report: A highly capable language model locally on your phone, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [2]

    Llm inference performance engineering: Best practices., 2023

    Megha Agarwal, Asfandyar Qureshi, Nikhil Sardana, Linden Li, Julian Quevedo, and Daya Khudia. Llm inference performance engineering: Best practices., 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Gkd: Generalized knowledge distillation for auto-regressive sequence models

    Rishabh Agarwal, Nino Vieillard, Piotr Stanczyk, Sabela Ramos, Matthieu Geist, and Olivier Bachem. Gkd: Generalized knowledge distillation for auto-regressive sequence models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13649, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  6. [4]

    Colt5: Faster long-range transformers with conditional computation

    Joshua Ainslie, Tao Lei, Michiel de Jong, Santiago Ontanon, Siddhartha Brahma, Yury Zemlyan- skiy, David Uthus, Mandy Guo, James Lee-Thorp, Yi Tay, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Sumit Sanghai. Colt5: Faster long-range transformers with conditional computation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages ...

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Hydra: Sequentially-dependent draft heads for medusa de- coding, 2024

    Zachary Ankner, Rishab Parthasarathy, Aniruddha Nrusimha, Christopher Rinard, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and William Brandon. Hydra: Sequentially-dependent draft heads for medusa de- coding, 2024. 14

    work page 2024

  8. [6]

    Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero- shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond

    Mikel Artetxe and Holger Schwenk. Massively multilingual sentence embeddings for zero- shot cross-lingual transfer and beyond. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:597–610, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 75 references
  1. [7]

    Jimmy Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. Layer normalization. In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 1113–1121, 2016

    2016

  2. [8]

    Mt-bench-101: A fine-grained benchmark for evaluating large language models in multi-turn dialogues

    Ge Bai, Jie Liu, Xingyuan Bu, Yancheng He, Jiaheng Liu, Zhanhui Zhou, Zhuoran Lin, Wenbo Su, Tiezheng Ge, Bo Zheng, and Wanli Ouyang. Mt-bench-101: A fine-grained benchmark for evaluating large language models in multi-turn dialogues. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting ...

    2024

  3. [10]

    Language models are few-shot learners

    Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877–1901, 2020

    1901

  4. [11]

    Medusa: Simple framework for accelerating llm generation with multiple decoding heads

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, and Tri Dao. Medusa: Simple framework for accelerating llm generation with multiple decoding heads. https://github. com/FasterDecoding/Medusa, 2023

    2023

  5. [12]

    Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling

    Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01318, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    EE-LLM: Large-scale training and inference of early-exit large language models with 3d parallelism

    Yanxi Chen, Xuchen Pan, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. EE-LLM: Large-scale training and inference of early-exit large language models with 3d parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.04916, 2023. Version 3, revised 16 Jun 2024

    2023 arXiv

  7. [14]

    DialogSum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset

    Yulong Chen, Yang Liu, Liang Chen, and Yue Zhang. DialogSum: A real-life scenario dialogue summarization dataset. In Chengqing Zong, Fei Xia, Wenjie Li, and Roberto Navigli, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 , pages 5062– 5074,...

    2021

  8. [15]

    Koala instruction set documentation, 2023

    Koala Project Contributors. Koala instruction set documentation, 2023. Accessed: 2024-11-06

    2023

  9. [17]

    Skipdecode: Autoregressive skip decoding with batching and caching for efficient llm inference

    Luciano Del Corro, Allie Del Giorno, Sahaj Agarwal, Bin Yu, Ahmed Awadallah, and Sub- habrata Mukherjee. Skipdecode: Autoregressive skip decoding with batching and caching for efficient llm inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02628, July 2023

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Spqr: A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless llm weight compression

    Tim Dettmers, Ruslan Svirschevski, Vage Egiazarian, Denis Kuznedelev, Elias Frantar, Saleh Ashkboos, Alexander Borzunov, Torsten Hoefler, and Dan Alistarh. Spqr: A sparse-quantized representation for near-lossless llm weight compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03078 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Nan Du, Yanping Huang, Andrew M. Dai, Simon Tong, Dmitry Lepikhin, Yuanzhong Xu, Maxim Krikun, Yanqi Zhou, Adams Wei Yu, Orhan Firat, Barret Zoph, Liam Fedus, Maarten Bosma, Zongwei Zhou, Tao Wang, Yu Emma Wang, Kellie Webster, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, Kathleen Meier-Hell...

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Evaluating the State-of-the-Art of End-to-End Natural Language Generation: The E2E NLG Challenge

    Ondˇrej Dušek, Jekaterina Novikova, and Verena Rieser. Evaluating the State-of-the-Art of End-to-End Natural Language Generation: The E2E NLG Challenge. Computer Speech & Language, 59:123–156, January 2020. 15

    2020

  13. [21]

    Depth-adaptive transformer

    Maha Elbayad, Jiatao Gu, Edouard Grave, and Michael Auli. Depth-adaptive transformer. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 2020. OpenReview.net. https://openreview.net

    2020

  14. [22]

    Predictive exit: Prediction of fine-grained early exits for computation- and energy- efficient inference

    Kaya et al. Predictive exit: Prediction of fine-grained early exits for computation- and energy- efficient inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04685, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Decoupled early time series classification using varied-length feature augmentation and gradient projection technique

    Sharma et al. Decoupled early time series classification using varied-length feature augmentation and gradient projection technique. MDPI Electronics, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity

    William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) . PMLR, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity

    William Fedus, Barret Zoph, and Noam Shazeer. Switch transformers: Scaling to trillion parameter models with simple and efficient sparsity. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23:1–39, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot

    Elias Frantar and Dan Alistarh. Sparsegpt: Massive language models can be accurately pruned in one-shot. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 10323–10337. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers

    Elias Frantar, Saleh Ashkboos, Torsten Hoefler, and Dan Alistarh. Gptq: Accurate post-training quantization for generative pre-trained transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17323, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Breaking the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding, November 2023

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. Breaking the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding, November 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Garncarek and J

    L. Garncarek and J. Snaider. Dynamic model compression via reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) , pages 3000– 3010, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Koala: Dialogue-based fine-tuning improves factuality and safety of llms

    Xiang Geng et al. Koala: Dialogue-based fine-tuning improves factuality and safety of llms. https://github.com/koala-research/koala, 2023. Accessed: November 15, 2024

    2023

  23. [31]

    Knowledge distillation of large language models

    Yuxian Gu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, and Minlie Huang. Knowledge distillation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.08543, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Identity mappings in deep residual networks

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Identity mappings in deep residual networks. In European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 630–645, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Dynabert: dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth

    Lu Hou, Zhiqi Huang, Lifeng Shang, Xin Jiang, Xiao Chen, and Qun Liu. Dynabert: dynamic bert with adaptive width and depth. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 9782–9793, December 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Adaptive mixtures of local experts

    Robert A Jacobs, Michael I Jordan, Steven J Nowlan, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural Computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991

    1991

  27. [35]

    Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Bour, Guillaume Lample, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Lucile Saulnier, Marie-Anne...

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the em algorithm

    Michael I Jordan and Robert A Jacobs. Hierarchical mixtures of experts and the em algorithm. Neural Computation, 6(2):181–214, 1994

    1994

  29. [37]

    Ten lessons from three generations shaped google’s tpuv4i

    Norman P Jouppi et al. Ten lessons from three generations shaped google’s tpuv4i. In 2021 ACM/IEEE 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) . IEEE, 2021. 16

    2021

  30. [38]

    In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit

    Norman P Jouppi, Cliff Young, Nishant Patil, David Patterson, Gaurav Agrawal, Raminder Bajwa, Sarah Bates, Suresh Bhatia, Nash Boden, Al Borchers, et al. In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit. Proceedings of the 44th Annual International Symposium on C...

    2017

  31. [39]

    Gpus and the future of parallel computing

    Stephen W Keckler, William J Dally, and Brucek Khailany. Gpus and the future of parallel computing. IEEE Micro, 31(5):7–17, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    Ai and machine learning acceleration in mobile devices: A survey of architectures, hardware, and algorithms

    Nicholas D Lane and Petko Georgiev. Ai and machine learning acceleration in mobile devices: A survey of architectures, hardware, and algorithms. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , 37(6):75–84, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    GShard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding

    Denis Lepikhin, Yi Lee, Hao Xu, Zongwei Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, and et al. GShard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  34. [42]

    GShard: Scaling Giant Models with Condi- tional Computation and Automatic Sharding

    Dmitry Lepikhin, HyoukJoong Lee, Yuanzhong Xu, Dehao Chen, Orhan Firat, Yanping Huang, Maxim Krikun, Noam Shazeer, and Zhifeng Chen. GShard: Scaling Giant Models with Condi- tional Computation and Automatic Sharding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning R...

    2021

  35. [43]

    Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 19274–19286. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology

    Gemma Team: Thomas Mesnard, Cassidy Hardin, Robert Dadashi, Surya Bhupatiraju, Shreya Pathak, Laurent Sifre, Morgane Rivière, Mihir Sanjay Kale, Juliette Love, Pouya Tafti, et al. Gemma: Open models based on gemini research and technology. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08295, 2024...

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Xiangru Miao, Gabriel Oliaro, Zhenyu Zhang, Xinyang Cheng, Zhen Wang, Randy Y . Y . Wong, Zhi Chen, Danish Arfeen, Rishita Abhyankar, and Zhihao Jia. SpecInfer: Accelerating generative LLM serving with speculative inference and token tree verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:230...

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Smith, Pang Wei Koh, Amanpreet Singh, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Niklas Muennighoff, Luca Soldaini, Dirk Groeneveld, Kyle Lo, Jacob Morrison, Sewon Min, Weijia Shi, Pete Walsh, Oyvind Tafjord, Nathan Lambert, Yuling Gu, Shane Arora, Akshita Bhagia, Dustin Schwenk, David Wadden, Alexander Wettig, Binyuan Hui, Tim Dettmers, Douwe Kiela, Ali F...

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm

    Deepak Narayanan, Mohammad Shoeybi, Jared Casper, Mostofa Ali Patwary, Sheikh Mostakim, Jianwei Huang, and et al. Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Net...

    2021

  40. [48]

    Cuda c++ programming guide, 2021

    NVIDIA. Cuda c++ programming guide, 2021. Available at: https://docs.nvidia.com/ cuda/cuda-c-programming-guide/index.html

    2021

  41. [49]

    GPT-4 Technical Report, 2023

    OpenAI. GPT-4 Technical Report, 2023

    2023

  42. [50]

    Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, 2019

    Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, Dario Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Lillicrap, Peter Humphreys, and Adam Santoro

    David Raposo, Sam Ritter, Blake Richards, T. Lillicrap, Peter Humphreys, and Adam Santoro. Mixture-of-depths: Dynamically allocating compute in transformer-based language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02258, April 2024. Corpus ID: 268876220

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.01108, 2019. 17

    1910 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Tran, Yi Tay, and Donald Metzler

    Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, Jai Gupta, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, Vinh Q. Tran, Yi Tay, and Donald Metzler. Confident adaptive language modeling. InProceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) , pages 17456–17472, April 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer

    Noam Shazeer, Azalia Mirhoseini, Krzysztof Maziarz, Andy Davis, Quoc Le, Geoffrey Hinton, and Jeff Dean. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y . Shen, R. Wang, and D. Zhang. Dynamic routing between capsules. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 11778–11789, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism

    Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08053, 2020

    1909 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Accelerating llm inference with staged speculative decoding

    Benjamin Spector and Chris Re. Accelerating llm inference with staged speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.04623, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models

    Mingjie Sun, Zhuang Liu, Anna Bair, and J Zico Kolter. A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Manmatha

    Peng Tang, Pengkai Zhu, Tian Li, Srikar Appalaraju, Vijay Mahadevan, and R. Manmatha. Deed: Dynamic early exit on decoder for accelerating encoder-decoder transformer models. In NAACL 2024, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Tuan Pham, S

    Hugo Touvron, P. Tuan Pham, S. Ravi, and A. Joulin. Alpaca: A strong, affordable instruction- following model. 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Model cascading: Towards jointly improving efficiency and accuracy of nlp systems

    Neeraj Varshney and Chitta Baral. Model cascading: Towards jointly improving efficiency and accuracy of nlp systems. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 11007–11021, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2022. As...

    2022

  54. [62]

    Investigating acceleration of LLaMA inference by enabling intermediate layer decoding via instruction tuning with ‘lite’

    Neeraj Varshney, Agneet Chatterjee, Mihir Parmar, and Chitta Baral. Investigating acceleration of LLaMA inference by enabling intermediate layer decoding via instruction tuning with ‘lite’. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2024 , volume Findi...

    2024

  55. [63]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  56. [64]

    Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Yizhong Wang, Yeganeh Kordi, Swaroop Mishra, Alisa Liu, Noah A. Smith, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-instruct: Aligning language model with self-generated instruc- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10560, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing, 2020

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, An- thony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, R’emi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, Joe Davison, et al. Transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing, 2020. Accessed via https: //huggingface.co

    2020

  58. [66]

    Speculative decoding: Lossless speedup of autoregressive translation, 2023

    Haoyang Xia, Tianyang Ge, Shiqi Chen, Furu Wei, and Zhifang Sui. Speculative decoding: Lossless speedup of autoregressive translation, 2023. Presented at OpenReview

    2023

  59. [67]

    Deebert: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating bert inference

    Ji Xin, Raphael Tang, Jaejun Lee, Yaoliang Yu, and Jimmy Lin. Deebert: Dynamic early exiting for accelerating bert inference. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) , pages 2246–2251, Online, 2020. Association for Compu...

    2020

  60. [68]

    Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions

    Canwen Xu et al. Wizardlm: Empowering large language models to follow complex instructions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Zeroquant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers

    Zhewei Yao, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Minjia Zhang, Xiaoxia Wu, Conglong Li, and Yuxiong He. Zeroquant: Efficient and affordable post-training quantization for large-scale transformers. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:27168–27183, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task

    Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, et al. Spider: A large-scale human-labeled dataset for complex and cross-domain semantic parsing and text-to-sql task. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.08887 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    P Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric. P Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena, 2023

    2023

  64. [72]

    Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning

    Victor Zhong, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. Seq2sql: Generating structured queries from natural language using reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/1709.00103, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Zhou and et al

    J. Zhou and et al. Self-attentive learning for sequence modeling: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 31(9):3200–3215, 2020

    2020

  66. [74]

    Designing efficient sparse expert models

    Barret Zoph and et al. Designing efficient sparse expert models. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2022. 19 A D YNAMIC COMPUTING A.1 G RADIENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION Traditional early exiting strategies frequently encounter i...

    2022

  67. [75]

    to establish distinct compute and memory-loading streams, both of which operate concurrently during each forward pass. The load stream is scheduled ahead of the compute stream to ensure efficient memory management: while the compute stream processes layer i, the load stream tr...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.