arXiv subjects

Sai Kapil Kumar

Publications and source records attributed to Sai Kapil Kumar.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Inference Engineering Pareto Atlas: Which Optimizations Dominate the Cost, Quality, and Latency Frontier?

LLM inference optimizations report speedups on different models, GPUs, prompts, and quality metrics, making them hard to compare or combine. We build a cost, quality, and latency Pareto atlas to identify the best configurations for different deployment constraints. Since exhaustive testing is impractical, we measure 54 configurations of Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct running on vLLM 0.12 across L4, A100, and H100 GPUs and use these anchors to calibrate a simulator. It reproduces measurements at anchored batch sizes, with cross campaign drift below 1.5 percent. A separate quality evaluation tests FP16, AWQ 4bit, FP8 weights, and FP8 KV cache on 200 GSM8K questions with five examples per prompt. Sparse attention is evaluated only in simulation. On the calibrated grid, 18 of 36 configurations reach the Pareto frontier. Combined methods reach it more often than individual methods, with 9 of 15 combinations versus 9 of 21 single methods. Quality testing changes the winners. AWQ 4bit reduces per token latency to 0.34 times baseline on L4 but loses 5.9 percent of strict GSM8K accuracy, narrowly missing the 95 percent quality floor within sampling uncertainty. Flexible answer extraction matches FP16 accuracy, suggesting the loss comes from formatting rather than arithmetic. FP8 weights retain 99.4 percent of baseline accuracy at 0.61 to 0.65 times baseline latency across all three GPUs and appear in three of four regime winners. A naive FP8 KV cache maintains normal throughput but answers none of the 200 questions correctly, showing why speed alone is insufficient. Under two prompt designs, n gram speculative decoding measures at 0.90 to 0.98 times baseline and adds no benefit on this stack. The best choice depends on the constraint and GPU: H100 wins for tight latency, while A100 wins for throughput and low cost at 0.106 dollars per million tokens.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Calibrate, Then Route: A Measured Study of Learned Request Routing for Disaggregated LLM Serving

Disaggregated LLM serving places compute heavy prefill and memory heavy decode on separate GPU pools. Systems such as DistServe, Splitwise, and Mooncake make this separation fast, but routing still determines which instances handle each request. We study a router that estimates the additional completion time on each instance using exact prompt length, predicted output length, post admission KV cache pressure, and SLO class. We develop the policy in a discrete event simulator and validate it on eight NVIDIA A40 GPUs, each running a vLLM engine, with NIXL transferring KV caches between pools. All workloads run at measured saturation. Across three mixed, bursty arrival traces, the calibrated router achieves the highest mean goodput at 0.864, compared with 0.835 to 0.847 for round robin, least loaded, and a length heuristic. It also shows the lowest variance across traces. It beats round robin and the length heuristic on all three traces and least loaded on two. On the third, it trails by 0.003, within run to run noise. Hardware calibration matters: simulator derived constants cost 4.5 goodput points and roughly 40 percent of the tail latency advantage, reducing the scorer to little more than queue counting. Benefits grow with decode pool size and traffic heterogeneity but disappear in pools with three instances, where queue counts are often enough. Under extreme scarcity, greedy cost minimization concentrates requests on the cheapest scored instance, and blind spreading performs better. With calibrated costs, the learned router matches the goodput of round robin using six GPUs instead of seven.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Where Should the KV Cache Live? Placement Policies Across GPU, CPU, and SSD for Long-Lived Sessions

GPU high bandwidth memory is scarce and expensive, and KV caches consume much of it as chats, agent loops, and document question answering accumulate state. Systems such as Mooncake, LMCache, FlexGen, InfiniGen, and AttentionStore extend GPU memory with CPU DRAM and SSD. The harder question is which blocks belong in each tier, when to move or evict them, and whether prefetching helps. We study these choices in a discrete event simulator spanning GPU HBM, CPU DRAM, and SSD, calibrated against a random forest execution time predictor. We compare recency, reuse frequency, predicted reuse, and an EWMA predictor with prefetch lookahead across chat, agent, and document question answering workloads. Tiering supports 73.02 times more concurrent sessions per GPU and lowers cost per session by 62.04 times. These gains come from tier capacities of 1 plus 8 plus 64, not placement policy. Decode is compute bound at batch size one in our setup, so placement barely affects throughput. It mainly changes PCIe migration traffic and time to first token. Recency produces 2.30 times less migration traffic than reuse frequency for chat. Reuse frequency performs best for agents and document question answering. The existing predicted reuse policy is byte identical to recency, making its agent recommendation effectively recency. A genuine EWMA predictor changes behavior but still ranks behind reuse frequency on the workloads prediction was expected to help. Prefetching does not justify its bandwidth cost. Across the policy and cache size grid, even an oracle with knowledge of future requests never beats no prefetch on migration traffic. Workload specific placement can reduce data movement, but the predicted reuse and prefetch recommendations are not supported as implemented.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

More GPUs or a Smaller Cache? Tensor Parallelism versus KV Compression for Memory-Bound LLM Serving

When an LLM serving deployment runs out of KVcache room, there are two well-established ways out. Tensor parallelism shards the weights and the KV cache across two, four, or eight devices, buying memory headroom at the price of an all-reduce on every layer and a hardware bill that grows with the device count. The algorithms community shrinks the cache in place, with KV quantisation and eviction keeping a single GPU and spending a little quality instead. Compression papers report memory ratios, parallel-scaling papers report throughput curves, and almost nobody puts the two on the same cost axis. We place tensor-parallel configurations (degree 1 to 8) and KV-compressed configurations (16/8/4-bit, keep-ratios down to 0.25) on one costnormalised axis, cost per million tokens against latency, using a profiled simulator calibrated on A100, A40, and H100 hardware, and we go looking for the cost-equivalence crossover. We do not find one. Across two models (Llama-2 at 7B and 70B), three GPU types, and every level of memory relief we could construct, compression is cheaper by 1.20x to 2.00x. A 7B model on an 80 GB device cannot exhaust its KV budget within its own context window, and the boundary that decides between the strategies is model size relative to device memory, at roughly 36B parameters for an 80 GB card. Below that wall, compression dominates and extra GPUs are largely wasted spend; above it, tensor parallelism stops being a choice and becomes an entry ticket: Llama-2-70B is infeasible on one A100 at any KV setting, because the binding resource is weights, which KV compression does not touch. Tensor parallelism is the only lever that improves latency (compression makes per-token latency worse, by 8 to 93%, through batching contention), while compression is the only lever that multiplies capacity per dollar (16.5x, against 1.21x for an eightfold spend on GPUs).

cs.AI↗