Distributed Inference and Fine-tuning of Large Language Models Over The Internet
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) are useful in many NLP tasks and become more capable with size, with the best open-source models having over 50 billion parameters. However, using these 50B+ models requires high-end hardware, making them inaccessible to most researchers. In this work, we investigate methods for cost-efficient inference and fine-tuning of LLMs, comparing local and distributed strategies. We observe that a large enough model (50B+) can run efficiently even on geodistributed devices in a consumer-grade network. This could allow running LLM efficiently by pooling together idle compute resources of multiple research groups and volunteers. We address two open problems: (1) how to perform inference and fine-tuning reliably if any device can disconnect abruptly and (2) how to partition LLMs between devices with uneven hardware, joining and leaving at will. In order to do that, we develop special fault-tolerant inference algorithms and load-balancing protocols that automatically assign devices to maximize the total system throughput. We showcase these algorithms in Petals - a decentralized system that runs Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) over the Internet up to 10x faster than offloading for interactive generation. We evaluate the performance of our system in simulated conditions and a real-world setup spanning two continents.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper develops fault-tolerant distributed inference and parameter-efficient fine-tuning algorithms for 50B+ LLMs running across unreliable, geo-distributed consumer devices. It implements them in PETALS and shows Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) can run over the Internet up to 10× faster than offloading for interactive generation.
Key findings
- PETALS runs Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) over the Internet up to 10× faster than offloading for interactive generation, and ≥10× faster in realistic network conditions.
- For BLOOM (176B) on 3× A100 (80 GB), sequential inference reached 1.71 steps/s at 1 Gbit/s and <5 ms RTT versus 0.0495 steps/s for offloading; on 10× RTX 3090 it reached 1.17 steps/s versus 0.0427 steps/s for offloading.
- In a real-world setup with 14 heterogeneous servers across Europe and North America, BLOOM reached 0.83 steps/s sequential inference, versus 0.18 steps/s for the theoretical-best offloading baseline.
- The fault-tolerant algorithm handled failures better than baselines: for BLOOM (7.1B) at 1024 tokens and failure rate 1e-2, it achieved 2.17 steps/s, while cache-less inference achieved 0.89 steps/s and caching with restarts did not finish within 1 hour.
- Full load balancing maintained connectivity and stayed within 10–15% of the upper-bound throughput most of the time in simulations with 206 virtual instances.
Methods
- The paper formulates fault-tolerant distributed autoregressive inference using dual attention caches: server-side caches hold past keys/values, while client-side caches hold past inputs so another server can restore state after a failure. It also develops decentralized load balancing that assigns contiguous transformer blocks to servers to maximize total system throughput.
- Experiments cover BLOOM (7.1B) with simulated failures, Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) under controlled bandwidth/latency, and BLOOM in a real-world setup with 14 servers using 2×RTX 3060, 4×2080Ti, 2×3090, 2×A4000, and 4×A5000 GPUs across Europe and North America.
- Main analyses benchmark sequential inference (steps/s) and parallel forward passes (tokens/s), comparing the distributed system against parameter offloading, local pipeline parallelism with NVLink, and theoretical-best offloading.
Limitations
- The paper states privacy is a key limitation: servers hosting the first model blocks may use their inputs to recover client data, so sensitive data should use trusted servers or an isolated network. It also notes possible supply/demand imbalance because clients need not run servers, and security risks from faulty servers returning incorrect outputs.
- The paper states the greedy load-balancing algorithm is not proven to find the exact optimal assignment; computational experiments found it usually achieves 90–100% of the optimal throughput.
- The text makes evident that the real-world setup is slower than A100 benchmarks due to slower hardware, and that fault tolerance assumes every block is hosted on several servers, an assumption examined in the next section.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
2 of 10 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
If none of the servers fail, the fault-tolerant algorithm recovers O(n • t) communication, similarly to Aminabadi et al. (2022).
“If none of the servers fail, we recover O(n • t) communication, similarly to Aminabadi et al. (2022).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites Aminabadi et al. (2022) source
The PCC section discusses GPU all-to-all communication latency, giving bounds of O(p/L) and O(p/L) + O(L). Searches for fault tolerance, server failures, and O(n • t) communication found no passage addressing the claimed failure-free case. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
- Findingown data
Our system significantly outperforms offloading even when each GPU node runs its own client doing single-batch inference at the same time.
“Crucially, our system significantly outperforms offloading even when each GPU node runs its own client doing single-batch inference at the same time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Inference is more challenging than fine-tuning for cost-efficient setups.
“Counter-intuitively, we found that inference is more challenging than fine-tuning for cost-efficient setups.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With realistic network speeds, the distributed algorithms perform autoregressive generation ≥10× faster than local offloading.
“With realistic network speeds, our distributed algorithms perform autoregressive generation ≥10× faster than local offloading.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Fine-tuning forward passes for large batches are affected by both bandwidth and latency.
“In turn, fine-tuning forward passes for large batches are affected by both bandwidth and latency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingcitation
Recomputing all previous tokens on every inference step requires O(t^3) time for transformer-based models.
“Naturally, this approach needs increasingly more computation with sequence length t, for a total of O(t 3 ) time for transformer-based modelsfoot_3 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Letting pipeline stages communicate directly reduces the total step time.
“This reduces the total step time since both messages are a few kilobytes in size an can be sent in parallel.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
The real-world setup turns out to be slower than the A100 benchmarks due to slower hardware.
“Finally, the real-world setup turns out to be slower than the A100 benchmarks due to slower hardware.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
PETALS runs Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) over the Internet up to 10× faster than offloading for interactive generation.
“We showcase these algorithms in PETALS 1 -a decentralized system that runs Llama 2 (70B) and BLOOM (176B) over the Internet up to 10× faster than offloading for interactive generation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Our algorithm outperforms offloading even when communicating between different continents.
“Still, our algorithm outperforms offloading even when communicating between different continents.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The fault-tolerant algorithm provides reasonable performance in all tested conditions, especially for higher failure rates.
“Unlike baselines, our algorithm provides reasonable performance in all tested conditions, especially for higher failure rates (common for communicating over the Internet, using spot/preemptible instances or unreliable hardware).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
- Findingown data
Existing parameter offloading techniques are inefficient in many use cases, such as LLM-based chatbots and search engines.
“However, as we show in Section 3.1, these techniques are inefficient in many use cases, such as LLM-based chatbots and search engines.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
Parameter offloading can still be efficient when generating large amounts of short sequences in bulk.
“Parameter offloading can still be efficient when generating large amounts of short sequences in bulk.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
Caching half-precision activations of a 2048-token sequence for large models like GPT-3 or OPT-175B takes up 9.6 GB GPU memory for each sequence.
“Caching half-precision activations of a 2048-token sequence for large models like GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020) or OPT-175B (Zhang et al., 2022) (with 96 layers of 12288 units each) takes up 9.6 GB GPU memory for each sequence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
A large enough model (50B+) can run efficiently even on geodistributed devices in a consumer-grade network.
“We observe that a large enough model (50B+) can run efficiently even on geodistributed devices in a consumer-grade network.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In other cases, our algorithm offers higher throughput than offloading for training.
“In other cases, our algorithm offers higher throughput than offloading for training.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
For models with over 50B parameters, communicating activations over a slow network can be faster than swapping layers from local RAM or SSD.
“Notably, for models with over 50B parameters, communicating activations over a slow network can be faster than swapping layers from local RAM or SSD.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
Recomputing all previous tokens on every inference step is often more efficient than offloaded caching, especially for shorter sequences.
“Surprisingly, this approach is often more efficient than offloaded caching, especially for shorter sequences due to the overhead from loading and storing cache from RAM or SSD.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For parallel forward passes, offloading is competitive if networking is limited to 100 Mbit/s or has high latency.
“For parallel forward passes, offloading is competitive if networking is limited to 100 Mbit/s or has high latency.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingnone given
The proposed system significantly outperforms other approaches to running inference on consumer-grade hardware.
“which significantly outperforms other approaches to running inference on consumer-grade hardware.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The throughput of the GPU-enabled client is similar (within 10% difference) to the throughput in sequence classification.
“We observe that the throughput of the GPU-enabled client is similar (within 10% difference) to the throughput in case of sequence classification, reported in Table 6.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The rebalancing algorithm does not cause oscillations because block replacements are executed only if they eventually increase throughput by at least p%.
“The rebalancing algorithm does not cause oscillations since a series of block replacements is executed only if it leads to eventually increasing throughput by at least p%.”
- Also stated in: § Stability of the greedy algorithm. · boosted
“We verified this behavior computationally, simulating a network with thousands of servers with different throughputs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Stability of the greedy algorithm. · boosted
- Findingown data
Prefix tuning is slower than prompt tuning because it adds several times more trainable parameters.
“The prefix tuning turns out to be slower, since it adds several times more trainable parameters.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The baseline running load balancing for new servers only achieves reasonable throughput during periods where servers are actively joining.
“Curiously, the baseline running load balancing for new servers only achieves reasonable throughput during periods where servers are actively joining.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingreasoning
The naive baseline with random layer assignment has zero throughput most of the time because it is unable to form a complete pipeline.
“Finally, the naive baseline with random layer assignment has zero throughput most of the time because it is unable to form a complete pipeline.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The greedy block assignment algorithm usually finds an assignment with total throughput of 90-100% of the optimal one, given realistic throughput values.
“we have conducted computational experiments and found out that this greedy algorithm (running in polynomial time) usually finds an assignment with total throughput of 90-100% of the optimal one (found by trying out all possible assignments in exponential time), given that the values of throughput are realistic to our setup.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: The throughput values used in the block assignment experiments are realistic to the setup.
- Findingnone given
The proposed system can scale to the largest publicly available language model with hundreds of billions of trainable parameters.
“We demonstrated that the proposed system can scale to the largest publicly available language model with hundreds of billions of trainable parameters.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Servers can simultaneously run different fine-tuning tasks without them interfering with one another.
“Thus, a server can simultaneously run different fine-tuning tasks without them interfering with one another.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The decentralized load-balancing algorithm assigns transformer blocks to every server to maximize the total system throughput.
“Finally, to make sure that there are enough servers for every part of the model, we develop a decentralzied load-balancing algorithm that assigns transformer blocks to every server to maximize the total system throughput.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Each server holds a segment of consecutive transformer blocks to minimize inference latency.
- Interpretationreasoning
PETALS allows users to run inference and fine-tuning over a swarm of unreliable devices with the same correctness guarantees as when running locally.
“The system allows users to run inference and fine-tuning over a swarm of unreliable devices with the same correctness guarantees as when running locally.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
- Interpretationreasoning
The next joining server would always cover a block with the smallest t_i.
“This way, the next joining server would always cover a block with the smallest t i .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Each server holds a segment of consecutive transformer blocks to minimize inference latency.
- Interpretationown data
Given the same hardware, a group of researchers will get much better inference speed by collaborating over the Internet using our system compared to each of them running offloading independently.
“Thus, given the same hardware, a group of researchers will get much better inference speed by collaborating over the Internet using our system compared to each of them running offloading independently.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If all servers fail after one step, the fault-tolerant algorithm effectively performs non-caching generation, which is the best option in that scenario.
“In turn, if all servers fail after one step, the algorithm effectively performs non-caching generation, which is the best option in that scenario.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
- Interpretationcitation
Parameter offloading is incompatible with in-context learning or prompt engineering, where the model needs to process long sequences of training examples.
“For instance, it is incompatible with in-context learning or prompt engineering, where the model needs to process long sequences of training examples (Brown et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
The fault-tolerant distributed autoregressive inference algorithm using dual attention caches can quickly recover from a failed server and reassign the load to one or more replacement servers.
“Using dual attention caches, this algorithm can quickly recover from a failed server and reassign the load to one or more replacement servers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
- Premisecitation
Even consumer-grade GPUs like GeForce RTX 3070 could run a complete inference step of BLOOM-176B in less than a second in terms of raw FLOPs.
“In terms of raw FLOPs, even consumer-grade GPUs like GeForce RTX 3070 could run a complete inference step of BLOOM-176B in less than a second (NVIDIA, 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites NVIDIA, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Interpretationreasoning
Quantization reduces the number of consecutive devices and communication rounds.
“To make this more efficient, we use quantization to store more parameters per GPU, reducing the number of consecutive devices and communication rounds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Our system may experience an imbalance between supply and demand because people using the client are not required to run a server.
“Since people using the client are not required to run a server, our system may experience an imbalance between supply (peers who dedicate GPUs to serve model layers) and demand (peers using the servers to perform inference or fine-tuning for their own needs).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Premisenone given
The heaviest operation the client does in sequence classification is multiplying 2 × h and h × b matrices.
“In case of sequence classification, the heaviest operation the client does is multiplying 2 × h and h × b matrices, where h is the hidden dimension (14336 in BLOOM-176B) and b is the batch size.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 7
- May combine two claims. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationLanguage model quality tends to improve as model scale increases.
“Their quality tends to improve as we increase model scale (Radford et al., 2019;Kaplan et al., 2020).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites Radford et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Kaplan et al., 2020
May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningCache-less inference can be competitive for short sequences (128 tokens), but slows down considerably on 1024 tokens.
“Finally, the cache-less inference can be competitive for short sequences (128 tokens), but slows down considerably on 1024 tokens, which agrees with our intuition from 3.1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor inference, performance does not depend much on bandwidth or sequence length but degrades with higher latency.
“For inference, performance does not depend much on bandwidth or sequence length but degrades with higher latency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningTraining an n-layer model on a sequence of t tokens needs O(n) communication rounds, while generating the same sequence needs O(n • t) rounds.
“In case of model parallelism, training an n-layerfoot_2 model on a sequence of t tokens needs O(n) communication rounds, while generating the same sequence needs O(n • t) rounds, making it more susceptible to network latency.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe offloading baseline is about an order of magnitude slower than our system for inference, both in practice and in the theoretical-best setup assuming an infinite GPU performance.
“We can see that the offloading baseline is about an order of magnitude slower than our system for inference, both in practice and in the theoretical-best setup assuming an infinite GPU performance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingnone givenCaching with restarts is most efficient for inference without failures, with our algorithm being somewhat slower due to less mature implementation.
“Caching with restarts is most efficient for inference without failures, with our algorithm being somewhat slower due to less mature implementation.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataUnlike baselines, our algorithm provides reasonable performance in all tested conditions, especially for higher failure rates.
“Unlike baselines, our algorithm provides reasonable performance in all tested conditions, especially for higher failure rates common for communicating over the Internet, using spot/preemptible instances or unreliable hardware).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataQuantization has about 5% of overhead with batch size 1 (20 tokens), but becomes negligible for larger batches.
“In terms of inference time, Table 5 demonstrates that quantization has about 5% of overhead with batch size 1 (20 tokens), but becomes negligible for larger batches.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningMoving client-side computations to GPU does not visibly improve performance in the sequence classification setup because the client does not perform any heavy operations.
“Notably, we observe that moving client-side computations to GPU does not visibly improve performance, since the client does not perform any heavy operations in this setup”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIncreasing prompt length and decreasing batch size make training slower.
“Increasing prompt length and decreasing batch size also make training slower.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe full load balancing maintains connectivity throughout the experiment and achieves throughput close to the upper bound, staying within the 10-15% range most of the time.
“The full load balancing maintains connectivity throughout the experiment and achieves throughput close to the upper bound (staying within the 10-15% range most of the time).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe algorithm needs to send O(t) data (in one round) for each failed server and compute only the stages held by the failed servers.
“When servers fail, the algorithm needs to send O(t) data (in one round) for each failed server and compute only the stages held by the failed servers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Every block is hosted on several servers.
May combine two claims.
FindingreasoningRunning naïvely would require 44 RTX 3070 GPUs and 44 communication rounds.
“However, the GPU memory can only hold a small fraction of model layers: running naïvely would require 44 RTX 3070 GPUs and 44 communication rounds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data8-bit quantization has little effect on LLM quality for major benchmarks.
“As shown in Table 4, this method has little effect on LLM quality for major benchmarks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataHigher thresholds p perform slightly worse during peak times but require only relatively infrequent block replacements, unlike the case with p = 1%.
“Higher thresholds p perform slightly worse during peak times but require only relatively infrequent block replacements, unlike the case with p = 1%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationDynamic blockwise quantization of hidden states before pipeline-parallel communication halves the bandwidth requirements without any noticeable effect on generation quality.
“To send less data between subsequent pipeline stages, we apply dynamic blockwise quantization (Dettmers et al., 2022b) to the hidden states before pipeline-parallel communication, which halves the bandwidth requirements without any noticeable effect on generation quality (Ryabinin et al., 2023).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Dettmers et al., 2022b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Ryabinin et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationParameter-efficient fine-tuning methods are often competitive with full model fine-tuning and even outperform it in low-data regimes.
“Despite their lower memory requirements, parameter-efficient approaches are often competitive with full model fine-tuning (Hu et al., 2021;Liu et al., 2021a;Yong & Nikoulina, 2022) and even outperform it in low-data regimes (Liu et al., 2022a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Hu et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Liu et al., 2021a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Yong & Nikoulina, 2022 source
Not checked in the free run.
May combine two claims.
Premisecitation8-bit mixed matrix decomposition roughly halves the memory footprint compared to 16-bit weights with negligible effect on the model quality.
“This decomposition separates hidden states and weights into two portions: about 0.1% of 16-bit outlier and 99.9% of 8-bit regular values, which roughly halves the memory footprint with negligible effect on the model quality (see evaluations in Appendix A).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dettmers et al., 2022a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenIn experiments, the same optimizations are applied to baseline systems for a fair comparison.
“In experiments, we apply the same optimizations to baseline systems for a fair comparison.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenThe overall throughput is the minimum of throughputs among model blocks.
“we choose to cover the minimums first because the overall throughput is the minimum of throughputs among model blocks”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenThe system runs persistently with the help of volunteers.
“The system runs persistently with the help of volunteers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
InterpretationreasoningThe fully decentralized nature of these protocols allows participants to add or remove their devices at any point, making optimal use of GPU idle time.
“The fully decentralized nature of these protocols allows participants to add or remove their devices at any point, making optimal use of GPU idle time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningUsing the assignment leading to the upper bound is not possible in practice because it requires each server to load a different set of layers every minute and solving a computationally expensive optimization problem.
“Note that using the assignment leading to the upper bound is not possible in practice since it requires each server to load a different set of layers every minute, on top of solving the computationally expensive optimization problem.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningOffloading 176B parameters takes at least 5.5 seconds, giving an upper bound of about 0.18 tokens/s for inference speed.
“As such, offloading 176B parameters takes at least: 176 GB • 8 256 Gbit/s = 5.5 seconds This gives the upper bound of 1/5.5 ≈ 0.18 tokens/s for the inference speed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: Offloading latency is zero in the upper bound estimation.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
InterpretationreasoningSome servers in practice may be faulty and return incorrect outputs instead of the actual results of forward and backward passes.
“In practice, some of them may turn out to be faulty and return incorrect outputs instead of the actual results of forward and backward passes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenA key limitation of our approach is that servers hosting the first model blocks may use their inputs to recover client data.
“A key limitation of our approach is that servers hosting the first model blocks may use their inputs to recover client data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe greedy heuristic allows servers to quickly close the gaps if a substantial share (up to 100%) of servers holding certain blocks leave, but avoids excess block replacements otherwise.
“To conclude, this greedy heuristic allows servers to quickly close the gaps if a substantial share (up to 100%) of servers holding certain blocks leave, but avoids excess block replacements otherwise.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe validator approach still leaves a chance of receiving wrong outputs, but allows to eventually expose and penalize faulty servers.
“While this approach still leaves a chance of receiving wrong outputs, it allows to eventually expose and penalize the faulty servers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe client performs only a small share of GPU computations in the forward and backward passes, and a particular model head and a loss function do not have decisive influence on the performance.
“Indeed, the client performs only a small share of GPU computations in the forward and backward passes, and a particular model head and a loss function do not have decisive influence on the performance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The authors state this as an assumption.
Every block is hosted on several servers.
“For simplicity, we assume that every block is hosted on several servers and examine this assumption in the next section.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each server holds a segment of consecutive transformer blocks to minimize inference latency.
“We assume that each server holds a segment of consecutive transformer blocks to minimize inference latency.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Each server belongs to a different person, and multiple people (possibly all) are interested in running inference or fine-tuning at the same time.
“We assume that each server belongs to a different person, and multiple people (possibly, all of them) are interested in running inference or fine-tuning at the same time.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Using 50B+ models requires high-end hardware, making them inaccessible to most researchers.
“However, using these 50B+ models requires high-end hardware, making them inaccessible to most researchers.”
The paper relies on this without support.
OPT-175B and BLOOM-176B need over 350 GB accelerator memory for inference and even more for fine-tuning.
“For example, OPT-175B and BLOOM-176B need over 350 GB accelerator memory for inference and even more for fine-tuning.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Existing LM algorithms are not designed to run inference with unreliable devices or high-latency networks.
“However, existing LM algorithms are not designed to run inference with unreliable devices or highlatency networks.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Servers in the system are run by many independent parties.
“We assume that servers in our system are run by many independent parties.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Offloading latency is zero in the upper bound estimation.
“We assume an offloading latency of zero in the upper bound estimation.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The throughput values used in the block assignment experiments are realistic to the setup.
“given that the values of throughput are realistic to our setup”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
The stated test sequence length conflicts with Table 1
MinorThe methods text says the comparison generates a sequence of length 512, but Table 1 reports results for 128- and 1024-token sequences.
“We compare our algorithm with baselines when generating a single sequence of length 512.”
“| Inference Algorithm | 128 tokens, failure rate: 1024 tokens, failure rate: | | | |”
Beam-search example assigns a cache to the wrong position
MinorUnder the stated indexing rule, [2, 2, 1, 3, 2] uses the second previous sequence for new positions 1, 2, and 5-not positions 1, 3, and 5.
“For instance, when given indices [2, 2, 1, 3, 2], a server will use 2nd best sequence from step t to produce the new 1st, 3rd and 5th best sequences.”
“Formally, a client can send a list of at most k integers in range [1, k], where i-th index specifies which previous attention cache should be used when generating i-th sequence of the next beam.”
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- BigScience, Microsoft, and NVIDIA. The fork of Megatron-LM and Megatron-DeepSpeed by BigScience. https://github.com/bigscience-workshop/Megatron-DeepSpeed, 2022.
- Dettmers, T., Lewis, M., Shleifer, S., and Zettlemoyer, L. 8-bit optimizers via block-wise quantization. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2022b.
- Houlsby, N., Giurgiu, A., Jastrzebski, S., Morrone, B., De Laroussilhe, Q., Gesmundo, A., Attariyan, M., and Gelly, S. Parameter-efficient transfer learning for nlp. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 2790-2799. PMLR, 2019.
- Huang, Y., Cheng, Y., Bapna, A., Firat, O., Chen, D., Chen, M., Lee, H., Ngiam, J., Le, Q. V., Wu, Y., et al. Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 103-112, 2019.
- Jia, Z., Zaharia, M., and Aiken, A. Beyond data and model parallelism for deep neural networks. In Talwalkar, A., Smith, V., and Zaharia, M. (eds.), Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, volume 1, pp. 1-13, 2019. URL https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper/2019/ file/c74d97b01eae257e44aa9d5bade97baf-Paper.pdf.
- Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., and Hinton, G. E. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Pereira, F., Burges, C. J. C., Bottou, L., and Weinberger, K. Q. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 1097-1105.
- Liu, H., Tam, D., Muqeeth, M., Mohta, J., Huang, T., Bansal, M., and Raffel, C. Few-shot parameter- efficient fine-tuning is better and cheaper than in-context learning, 2022b. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2205.05638.
- Ryabinin, M., Dettmers, T., Diskin, M., and Borzunov, A. SWARM Parallelism: Training Large Models Can Be Surprisingly Communication-Efficient. In Krause, A., Brunskill, E., Cho, K., Engelhardt, B., Sabato, S., and Scarlett, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pp. 29416- 29440. PMLR, 23-29 Jul 2023. URL https://proceedings.mlr.press/v202/ryabinin23a. html.
- Sung, Y.-L., Nair, V., and Raffel, C. Training neural networks with fixed sparse masks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021.
- Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L. u., and Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. In Guyon, I., Luxburg, U. V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R. (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, pp. 5998-6008.
- Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL http://papers.nips.cc/ paper/7181-attention-is-all-you-need.pdf.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Review on Edge Large Language Models: Design, Execution, and Applications
Zheng, Y., Chen, Y., Qian, B., Shi, X., Shu, Y., & Chen, J. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3719664 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Park, S., Kim, K.-S., So, J., Jung, J., Lee, J.-G., Woo, K., Kim, N., Lee, Y., Kim, H., Kwon, Y., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA) · doi:10.1109/hpca57654.2024.00078 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Helix: Serving Large Language Models over Heterogeneous GPUs and Network via Max-Flow
Mei, Y., Zhuang, Y., Miao, X., Yang, J., Jia, Z., & Vinayak, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1 · doi:10.1145/3669940.3707215 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Efficient Training and Inference: Techniques for Large Language Models Using LlamaPreprint
Cunningham, S. R., Archambault, D., & Kung, A. (2024) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.171651876.65094225/v1 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Equipping Llama with Google Query API for Improved Accuracy and Reduced HallucinationPreprint
Bae, Y. S., Kim, H. R., & Kim, J. H. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4014474/v1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
LLM for Mobile: An Initial Roadmap
Chen, D., Liu, Y., Zhou, M., Zhao, Y., Wang, H., Wang, S., Chen, X., Bissyandé, T. F., Klein, J., & Li, L. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3708528 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
A Matching Game for LLM Layer Deployment in Heterogeneous Edge Networks
Picano, B., Hoang, D. T., & Nguyen, D. N. (2025) · IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society · doi:10.1109/ojcoms.2025.3561605 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Decentralized LLM Inference over Edge Networks with Energy Harvesting
Khoshsirat, A., Perin, G., & Rossi, M. (2024) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/globecom52923.2024.10901542 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Efficient Large Language Model Inference with Vectorized Floating Point CalculationsPreprint
Owens, J., & Matthews, S. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/h3cmw · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Prompt Inversion Attack Against Collaborative Inference of Large Language Models
Qu, W., Zhou, Y., Wu, Y., Xiao, T., Yuan, B., Li, Y., & Zhang, J. (2025) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp61157.2025.00160 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Recognizing Emotion Regulation Strategies from Human Behavior with Large Language Models
Müller, P., Heimerl, A., Hossain, S. M., Siegel, L., Alexandersson, J., Gebhard, P., André, E., & Schneeberger, T. (2024) · International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and workshops · doi:10.1109/acii63134.2024.00029 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Latency-aware service placement for GenAI at the edge
Thapa, B. B., & Mashayekhy, L. (2024) · Disruptive Technologies in Information Sciences · doi:10.1117/12.3013437 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Memory-Efficient LLM Fine-Tuning on the Mobile Device via Server Assisted Side Tuning
Li, L., & Wu, W. R. (2025) · doi:10.1145/3737902.3768351 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
DroidSpeak: KV Cache Sharing for Cross-LLM Communication and Multi-LLM Serving
Liu, Y., Huang, Y., Yao, J., Feng, S., Gu, Z., Du, K., Li, H., Cheng, Y., Jiang, J., Lu, S., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.02820 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Communication-Efficient Decentralized LLM Inference over Low-Bandwidth Distributed Nodes
Wang, Z., Shu, S., Wang, Y., Lai, I.-H., & Peng, C.-C. (2026) · International Conference on Electronics and Communication, Network and Computer Technology (ECNCT) · doi:10.1109/ecnct70535.2026.11661442 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
HLAT: High-quality Large Language Model Pre-trained on AWS Trainium
Fan, H., Zhou, H., Huang, G., Raman, P., Fu, X., Gupta, G., Ram, D., Wang, Y., & Huan, J. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData) · doi:10.1109/bigdata62323.2024.10825098 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Zhang, B., Hou, J., & Zhang, J. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2026.3703757 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Power-Aware Orchestration for Geo-Distributed LLM Inference via Quantum Optimization
Zheng, X., Min, J., Luo, L., Yu, H., & Li, Z. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnse.2026.3704855 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Dzierzanowski, R., Watson, T., & Stevenson, C. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.31219/osf.io/bvyjt · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Advancements in Distributed Systems for Large Language Model Training and ServingPreprint
Smith, N. A. (2024) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/dk3hu
Transformer-Based Resource and Stage-Aware Scheduling for Model-Parallel LLM Inference
Naeem, R., Buyantogtokh, T., Rizk, H., Amano, T., & Yamaguchi, H. (2025) · International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking (ICDCN) · doi:10.1145/3737611.3776613
Kinjo, T., MOCHIZUKI, T., Nakano, H., ENOKI, K., & Sei, Y. (2026) · Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications · doi:10.1115/1.4071502
SALB: Security-Aware Load Balancing for Large Language Model Training in Datacenter Networks
Luo, W., Hu, J., Sharma, P. K., & Wang, J. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2026.3678979
Liao, X.-C., Mei, Y., & Zhang, M. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2026.3689536
Fu, Y., Qin, P. D., & Jiang, C. (2026) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2026.3690731
Net4LMs: Wireless Network-Aided Language Models
Du, H., Chen, X., Liu, Y., & Huang, K. (2026) · Wireless networks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-20194-2_4
Load balancing for large language model inference serving: A control and learning oriented survey
Ma, H., Li, Z., Wang, J., Cao, C., Li, D., Yang, J., & Ding, Z. (2026) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2026.134973
Efficient LoRA-Based Weight Update Write-Back in 3D NAND Flash for Large Language Models
Zhao, D., Luo, T., Liang, L., Wang, Z., & Cai, Y. P. (2026) · IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems proceedings · doi:10.1109/iscas66217.2026.11562094
A Provably Cost-Efficient Approach to Deploying MoE Inference Models at the Network Edge
Wang, C., Zheng, D., Xing, H., Yang, C., Cao, X., Xu, J., & Teng, F. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2026.3707550
Decentralized Gradient Descent with an Increasing Consensus Procedure Accuracy
Murzina, A., Kuruzov, I. A., & Gasnikov, A. V. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31390-4_3
The Impact and Potential of Large Language Models in Personalized Learning Environments
Aderghal, Y., Ghazi, A. E., & Hafidi, H. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-23844-3_30
Efficient KV Cache Migration for Geo-Distributed LLM Inference in Collaborative Edge Computing
Zhang, M., Cao, J., Wu, T., Chen, X., & Wang, N. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/2575-8411.2026.00033
TAILOR: Token-Aware Partitioning and Routing for Edge–Cloud Transformer Inference
Huang, X., Liu, R. R., & Wu, J. (2026) · International Workshop on Quality of Service · doi:10.1109/iwqos70441.2026.11661040
M-CSN: Joint Architecture and Flow Scheduling for Metro-Scale AI Fabric Based on Supernodes
Guo, L., Zhao, J., Quan, W., Wang, S., Li, J., & Zhang, H. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/tnse.2026.3727990
Scaling Concurrent LLM Services via Self-Adaptive Load Balancing in Edge Environments
Wang, T., He, X., Yu, S., & Wang, Z. (2026) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws72778.2026.00183
Wang, Z. F., Li, W., Ren, A., Liu, D., Zhang, B., Zhong, K., Qin, C., & Li, H. (2026) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Parallel Processing · doi:10.1145/3832810.3832869
- Authors
- Borzunov, A., Ryabinin, M., Chumachenko, A., Baranchuk, D., Dettmers, T., Belkada, Y., Samygin, P., & Raffel, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 12312-12331
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2312.08361
- OpenAlex
- W7133215307
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11
- FWCI
- 6.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- distributed inference, large language models, fine-tuning, internet-based training, distributed computing
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-31.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-31.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review