Skip to content
AI NEWS JOURNAL
AI, IN PERSPECTIVE

Search AI news

Search headlines, summaries and articles to connect the dots.

Newest first

Not All Loops Cost the Same: Phase-Dependent Depth for Serving Looped Transformers

arXiv:2611.07211v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Looped transformers scale inference-time reasoning by repeatedly reusing a shared core, increasing computation without increasing parameter count. Serving prefilling and decoding with a uniform loop budget couples their costs. We present LoopDuet, a phase-dependent depth and training-free serving approach that selects the two budgets jointly while preserving decoding depth at prefilling boundaries. Our vLLM implementation gathers tokens requiring further recurrence into compact batches, turning the selected allocation into executable savings with existing weights and attention kernels. At runtime, a queue-age controller adjusts prefilling depth to retain quality as demand changes. Experiments on the full HotpotQA dataset with one A100-80GB demonstrate two benefits of this flexibility. First, separate phase budgets improve the quality--throughput trade-off: Huginn delivers 19\% more throughput than the fastest tested uniform setting meeting the same accuracy criterion, while a higher-throughput operating point gains 6.04 EM points over uniform depth eight at 97\% of its throughput. Second, the same execution mechanism retains more quality under load: on two evaluated OLMo arrival traces, adaptive prefilling gains 0.92--1.35 EM points over the most accurate tested fixed-depth controls at the same 100\% attainment of a one-second time-to-first-token target. Together, these results establish LoopDuet as a practical way to turn flexible model computation into higher serving capacity and better quality under load.

Where Should a KV-Cache Repair Budget Go? Distractor Structure and Contextual Compatibility in Non-Prefix Reuse

arXiv:2611.06397v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Non-prefix KV-cache reuse encodes retrieved chunks independently and concatenates their caches. To find where a small repair budget should be spent, we vary the chunks around the answer-bearing one (the target) across three 7B-8B models and four datasets of dialogue memory, open-domain QA and API documentation. Reuse loses 19-100% of the context-dependent questions that full prefill answers, and it loses more when the other chunks are of the same kind as the target. Because the recoverable damage is spread over these other chunks, restoring a few of them recovers little, and the budget is better spent on the target. This works through contextual compatibility: recomputing the target against the reused cache beats inserting its full-prefill KV in all seven settings tested, although the recomputed KV stays far from the full-prefill KV. Question attention over reused caches, however, selects the target in at most 18.8% of development questions. A retriever finds it more often, and recomputing its top chunk after moving it next to the question significantly beats InfoFlow-style reordering at the same 5% budget in six of nine open-domain QA and API-documentation settings. On dialogue memory, though, recomputing chunks never significantly beats the token-level selector chosen for each setting.