arXiv subjects

Dushyant Rajput

Publications and source records attributed to Dushyant Rajput.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Shared-Prefix KV Reuse Across Standard LoRA Adapters: Quality and Serving Tradeoffs

A common small-model deployment runs one shared backbone with several LoRA specialists that answer over the same context. Serving them naively re-prefills that shared context once per specialist. We study a narrow, practical question: for already-trained standard LoRA adapters -- not adapters retrained for cache compatibility -- how much task quality is preserved if the backbone's prefill KV cache is computed once and reused across specialists, and what does that buy in serving cost? On a Qwen3-1.7B backbone with two adapters (extractive QA on HotpotQA, arithmetic reasoning on GSM8K), we sweep the boundary at which the specialist takes over from the reused base cache and measure paired quality differences and serving cost. Full-prefix reuse had the lowest prefill cost and a small quality difference on held-out GSM8K (Delta = -4.6 EM at a 160-token budget; -3.0 at 320 tokens; -0.8 under a second training seed -- all favoring native, only the first excluding zero, and the magnitude not consistent). Partial recomputation provided no demonstrated advantage. Neither quality equivalence nor a general boundary-selection rule is established. We also report a closed-form ridge KV translator that did not beat direct reuse, and specialist-dependence contrasts whose intervals all include zero. The measured serving benefit is warm-cache time-to-first-token, which grows with context (~16x at 8K); two-branch peak memory was only 12% lower and, on inspection, the prefix was never physically shared across branches -- this implementation reuses KV values but copies their storage, so shared-cache memory savings are not achieved.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Depth and Scale in the Sub-150M Regime: JugnuLM-53M vs JugnuLM-110M

We scale our conventional sub-150M pretraining recipe from 53.5M to 109.7M parameters, holding the method fixed (Qwen3-style decoder with grouped-query attention, RoPE, SwiGLU, RMSNorm, QK-Norm, and a z-loss; FineWeb-Edu data) and changing only the geometry to a deep-and-thin 23-layer x 576-hidden design. The larger model improves across the board -- BLiMP 78.1 -> 81.3, ARC-Easy 51.4 -> 52.5, WikiText-2 byte-perplexity 2.04 -> 1.95 -- and its 81.3% BLiMP essentially matches GPT-X2-125M (81.28) at about 12% fewer parameters. Notably the 110M model achieves this on fewer training tokens (about 8B vs 12B), so the gain is attributable to capacity and depth, not more data. Both models are deliberately conventional; this report is a clean scaling control and the baseline rung (R0) of an ablation study of what further improves models in this regime. An ablation ladder follows: value residuals (R1) and the Muon optimizer (R2) lift ARC-Easy by a cumulative +3.6 (52.5 -> 56.1) at a near-flat BLiMP and are kept; a diverse data blend (R3) and two logit-distillation settings (R4a/R4b) are not kept -- honest negatives. R3 pins ARC-Easy to FineWeb-Edu's educational filtering rather than raw diversity; distillation from a 1.7B teacher can reach the class-leading ARC-Easy (56.99, matching GPT-X2-125M) but only at a perplexity cost that dialing KD down then erases -- so R2 remains the best kept stack.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Cheap Verifiers, Large Blind Spots: Measuring the Reliability Cost of Cost-Saving Cascades

Inference cascades cut cost by answering most queries with a cheap model and escalating a hard tail to a frontier model that acts as verifier. A natural extension closes the loop: fine-tune the cheap student on the verifier's rejections so the escalation rate, and cost, fall each round. We measure this loop on real LLMs and report four findings. First, the verifier's blind spot, the fraction of the student's wrong answers it accepts, is large and moves adversarially: it grows with student capability ($β$ from 0.12 to 0.55 as the student scales 0.5B to 32B) and shrinks with verifier capability, so it is worst in the cheap-student, cheap-verifier regime cascades exist to create. Second, buying it away returns the saving: a frontier verifier drives $β$ to about 0.05 but then escalates on 46% of hard-MATH queries against a 39% true error rate, paying the frontier price on nearly half of all traffic. Third, naive corrective fine-tuning on the verifier-rejected tail does not improve the small student but degrades and ultimately collapses it, across every teacher we tried (cross-family and same-family), so at this scale the self-improving loop is self-defeating. Fourth, through all of this the cascade's own dashboard, every metric computed through the verifier, reads a flat 3% error while true delivered error swings up to 32%: the system is blind to its own degradation by construction. We then give the theory that explains the blindness, a two-population conservation law, $ε_\infty \lesssim q_0 β_0$, under which every in-loop metric improves while true quality does not, and a synthetic study that validates the mechanism. The practical conclusion: the reliability of a self-improving cascade cannot be read from any metric computed through its own verifier.

cs.AI↗