MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948093127 · doi:10.48448/1kxs-ds29

Context-Aware Assistant Selection for Improved Inference Acceleration with Large Language Models

2024· other· en· W6948093127 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueUnderline Science Inc. · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicWood and Agarwood Research
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInferenceLeverage (statistics)Language modelHullModel selectionFlexibility (engineering)Rendering (computer graphics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their widespread adoption, large language models (LLMs) remain prohibitive to use under resource constraints, with their ever growing sizes only increasing the barrier for use. One particular issue stems from the high latency associated with auto-regressive generation in LLMs, rendering the largest LLMs difficult to use without advanced computing infrastructure. Assisted decoding, where a smaller draft model guides a larger expert model's generation, has helped alleviate this concern, but remains dependent on alignment between the two models. Thus if the draft model is insufficiently capable on some domain of interest relative to the target model, performance can degrade. Alternatively, one can leverage multiple draft models to better cover the expertise of the target, but when multiple black-box draft models are available, selecting an assistant without details about its construction can be difficult. To better understand this decision making problem, we observe it as a contextual bandit, where a policy must choose a draft model based on a context. We show that even without prior knowledge of the draft models, creating an offline dataset from only outputs of independent draft/target models and training a policy over the alignment of these outputs can accelerate performance on multiple domains as long as an individual draft model is effective. We observe these results hold on various settings with multiple assisted decoding candidates, highlighting its flexibility and the advantageous role that such decision making can play.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUnderline Science Inc.Same topicWood and Agarwood ResearchFrench-language works237,207