arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Theo Tang

Publications and source records attributed to Theo Tang.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Sample-Guided Exact Top-K Selection for Long-Context Sparse Attention

Sparse attention bounds downstream attention work by retaining a fixed-size subset of indexed tokens, but its standalone exact Top-$K$ stage must still process materialized score rows whose length grows with context. Production radix selectors discover their first actionable boundary only after a complete-row pass, forcing another row-scale traversal before exact refinement. We observe that locating a compact upper tail requires substantially less resolution than identifying the exact rank boundary, and that fixed-stride partial views of the current row remain calibrated to the corresponding complete-row rank across ragged lengths. We present HPC-Ops Top-K, a sample-guided exact selector for ragged sparse-attention score rows. A fixed-stride view proposes a row-local coarse boundary; the mandatory complete-row pass certifies its sufficiency, forms the admitted candidate set, and initializes exact FP32 refinement over the unresolved frontier. A nested secondary boundary and exact recovery handle underfilled proposals before any output is committed, so sampling controls common-path work but never correctness. The GPU implementation fuses complete-row certification and candidate formation, and combines persistent, KV-split, and direct-exact execution behind graph-capturable ragged-row dispatch. We evaluate HPC-Ops Top-K on indexer scores from Hy4-Preview. It outperforms the fastest verified external exact baseline by $1.29$--$1.75\times$ across 20 operator configurations, with a $1.55\times$ geometric-mean speedup. It further achieves $1.36\times$ and $1.48\times$ speedups on two framework-derived sparse-attention traces. The implementation is available in HPC-Ops, Tencent's open-source high-performance operator library for LLM inference, at https://github.com/Tencent/hpc-ops.

cs.DC

Can We Volunteer Out of the Peer Review Crisis?

The volume of scientific manuscripts is growing faster than the capacity to evaluate them, yet the institutions that govern peer review have remained largely unchanged. The result is a widening mismatch: reviewer scarcity, noisier assessments, and declining confidence in editorial decisions. Every scientist wants better reviews, but review quality depends on the total burden, which no single author can shift. To isolate this tension, we provide a game-theoretic thought experiment: a voluntary lottery in which authors accept a chance of random pre-review rejection, reducing reviewer burden and improving the quality of surviving evaluations. We show that a Nash equilibrium emerges in which authors voluntarily enter the lottery. Scientists who care about the literature they read, not just the papers they publish, will opt in, raising the quality of published science for all.

cs.GT