SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Jerry Kaplan

Publications and source records attributed to Jerry Kaplan.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A Calibrated Instrument for Measuring How Inference Optimizations Affect Output Quality

Large language model optimization is an active research area, spanning quantization of model weights, early-exit methods for skipping layers, and speculative decoding. Each track uses its own quality measures, typically an idiosyncratic benchmark score. Few approach the measurement precision required by other scientific disciplines. We propose a rigorous methodology for measuring output quality, suitable for cross-system and cross-technique comparison. We score outputs with an LLM as a judge, but calibrate the judge formally: we compare its scores on two ordinary runs of a model given the same prompts, verifying that it shows no systematic preference between statistically equivalent outputs and measuring its per-sample noise. Each design also includes a 'null' condition, provably identical in distribution to the unmodified model, whose measured difference must be zero. With this one instrument we measure several acceleration techniques on the same prompts, so their quality costs can be compared. Perceived quality proves highly dependent on the domain of discourse. A 4-bit model was indistinguishable from its 16-bit original down to our design's +/-0.3-point resolution, in English prose and Chinese alike. At 3-bit precision the same prompts lost 0.5 points in English prose, 0.9 in Chinese, and 1.1 on multi-step math; early exit that cost 0.7 points on prose cost 2.5 on math, cutting correctly solved problems from 19 of 27 to 6. The pattern held for models from Alibaba and from Meta, but not its magnitude: the same quantizer cost Meta's model 1.8 points where it cost Alibaba's 0.7. A model's certainty about a token predicts how likely it is to differ from the full model's choice, but not how much that difference affects judged quality, so acceptance rules relying on certainty cannot distinguish errors that matter from errors that don't.

cs.CL

One Size Does Not Fit All: Setting Inference Depth from the Questions a Deployment Actually Asks

A transformer language model is trained to respond to any prompt, but each deployment asks only a narrow range of questions: a support assistant sees delivery complaints, a coding tool sees Python. Every deployment nonetheless pays the same computation per token. This paper measures how much of that cost is avoidable when the range of prompts is known in advance. The mechanism examined is early exit: a small, trained component - called a readout - is attached to an intermediate layer and proposes a token, and a confidence test decides whether to emit it or to run the remaining layers. The models are frozen, and the only supervision used is the model's own output on ordinary traffic. Three findings are reported. First, achievable savings depend strongly on the kind of traffic: at half depth on a 1.5-billion-parameter model, 96 percent of tokens could be emitted early for arithmetic word problems and 8 percent for Chinese-language explanations, at matched token-level fidelity to the full model (a measure whose limits the third finding exposes). Second, of three ways a deployment might use knowledge of its traffic, only customizing the threshold for exiting early is worthwhile: calibrating it per deployment raised exit rates by up to 59 percentage points across three models, and by more than 10 points on most corpora tested. Third, token-level fidelity - the standard evaluation measure in the early-exit literature - fails in domains where tokens can be checked against ground truth: on arithmetic word problems, three models each answered sixty questions correctly when run in full, and between 10 and 28 correctly under early exit, in the configuration that scored highest on fidelity. The intended setting is small models on personal devices, where generation is limited by memory bandwidth rather than computation.

cs.CL