arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.30448

To Store or To Regenerate? A Cost Model for AI-Generated Content at Scale

Yunjia Zheng·Zirui Wang·Haoran Ni·Tingfeng Lan·Zhaoyuan Su·Yue Cheng·Juncheng Yang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

AI-generated content is becoming a rapidly growing class of digital artifacts. Because these artifacts accumulate over time, their exponential growth creates a substantial storage, energy, and infrastructure cost for operators and society. At the same time, GPU compute cost continues to fall rapidly with each hardware generation. This divergence raises a fundamental question: when does on-demand regeneration become cheaper than persistent storage? This paper develops a cost model for comparing persistent storage and on-demand regeneration for AI-generated artifacts. The model accounts for corpus growth, HDD and tape price trends, drive replacement, electricity, request skew, caching, generator FLOPs, and future GPU price-performance improvements. For image generation, our analysis shows that prompt-based regeneration does not become cheaper than storage until around 2040, because every cache miss must still rerun the full prompt-to-artifact generation pipeline. We observe that widely used diffusion-based generation models operate in latent space, creating an alternative point in the cost tradeoff: instead of storing the final artifact or only the prompt, operators can store a compact intermediate representation (IR) and perform cheap on-demand decoding. Our analysis shows that caching combined with IR-based regeneration substantially reduces both storage and compute cost, making it at least 2x cheaper than both full-object storage and prompt-based regeneration even today. On a production image trace with 2.07 billion requests, the same conclusion holds: prompt-based regeneration is over 100x more expensive than storage, while IR-based regeneration reduces total cost to roughly half that of full-object storage while preserving interactive miss latency.

Explore related subjects

cs.PF

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yunjia Zheng, Zirui Wang, Haoran Ni, Tingfeng Lan, Zhaoyuan Su, Yue Cheng, Juncheng Yang. 2026-09-24. To Store or To Regenerate? A Cost Model for AI-Generated Content at Scale. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.30448

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

How Far Are We From On-Device VLM Inference? A Measurement Study on Edge NPUs

Diverse optimizations spanning model architecture, inference runtime, and hardware acceleration have been proposed for on-device vision-language model (VLM) deployment on edge NPUs. Still, cross-layer coordination of VLM execution on edge NPUs remains largely underexplored. This paper presents an empirical measurement study across six representative VLMs, three real-world edge platforms, and ten multimodal benchmarks. Our evaluation drills down from end-to-end application-level latency and thermal traces down to low-level kernel-scale execution behaviors, challenging several widely held community assumptions. First, softmax dominates attention costs; even lookup-table-based softmax optimizations cannot eliminate pipeline bubbles that severely underutilize NPU matrix units. Second, theoretical speedups from linear attention vanish under real-NPU execution due to prohibitive tensor-rearrangement overhead. Third, no hardware backend universally dominates autoregressive decoding: attention-tensor-shaped parallelism dictates NPU efficiency and shifts the CPU-NPU performance balance. We further find task-specific Sweet Resolutions for VLMs, which deliver meaningful accuracy gains at only modest latency overhead. Complementing these findings, we provide actionable cross-layer recommendations for hardware architects, runtime developers, and model designers.

cs.PF↗
arXiv2026

DeepInfer-Mac: Running a 750B-Class MoE on a 24 GB Laptop

DeepInfer-Mac runs the 750B-class DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash model on a MacBook Air with 24 GB of unified memory. A mixed low-bit conversion occupies 338 GiB on the internal SSD. About 7.6 GiB of weights remain resident; routed experts and Engram rows are loaded when needed. This separation makes the model executable, but it leaves each generated token waiting for a succession of storage reads. We organize expert weights so that reads fill reusable GPU buffers directly, and couple cache allocation with the lifetime of those buffers. In end-to-end runs, the system generates English, Chinese and code at 0.21-0.72 tokens per second, with a largest sampled process footprint of 16.73 GiB across the tested requests. Matched decode comparisons show a 21.0% throughput gain from next-layer prefetching over resident-expert overlap alone, at the cost of additional reads. Longer prompts remain costly. We describe the design, provide the implementation and measurement scripts, and identify the limits of this operating point: a model far larger than memory can run locally, while storage and prefill still govern the user's wait.

cs.PF↗
arXiv2026

DFIP: Decision-Focused Inference Path for System One Models

System One (decision) models return small structured answers, but can retain host dispatch, GPU launch overhead and full-vocabulary projection. We present DFIP (Decision-Focused Inference Path), an empirical systems study of established inference techniques in PPLX-Decider, Liquid d1-3B, Clef-Flash and GLiNER2.5-Decide. Selective CUDA graph replay, candidate-token projection and schema-compatible length-aware batching are applied at compatible model boundaries. We compare resident requests with stronger native baselines, audit exposed answers and measure changing arrivals. With optional native Qwen kernels installed, short Boolean resident speedups over strengthened native are 2.47x for Decider across five containers and 1.45x for Clef across four of five planned containers; Clef's fifth fails in native preflight. Liquid is effectively tied with released compilation; replay supplies most of its eager-baseline gain, while projection alone adds little full-request benefit. In a one-worker GLiNER follow-up, length-aware batching is 1.40x faster than compiled native FIFO batching on a diverse resident trace, but has worse arrival p95. Decider and Clef audits cover 3,024 decisions per model and preserve all 1,112 returned choices, while Clef changes scores, probabilities and serving confidence thresholds. Diverse external arrivals reverse fixed-shape replay gains and expose overload losses and a replay-path CUDA error. The results identify workload-specific acceleration and its limits, rather than a universal optimizer or production readiness.

cs.PF↗