The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Fairness in Serving Large Language Models
Abstract
High-demand LLM inference services (e.g., ChatGPT and BARD) support a wide range of requests from short chat conversations to long document reading. To ensure that all client requests are processed fairly, most major LLM inference services have request rate limits, to ensure that no client can dominate the request queue. However, this rudimentary notion of fairness also results in under-utilization of the resources and poor client experience when there is spare capacity. While there is a rich literature on fair scheduling, serving LLMs presents new challenges due to their unpredictable request lengths and their unique batching characteristics on parallel accelerators. This paper introduces the definition of LLM serving fairness based on a cost function that accounts for the number of input and output tokens processed. To achieve fairness in serving, we propose a novel scheduling algorithm, the Virtual Token Counter (VTC), a fair scheduler based on the continuous batching mechanism. We prove a 2x tight upper bound on the service difference between two backlogged clients, adhering to the requirement of work-conserving. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate the superior performance of VTC in ensuring fairness, especially in contrast to other baseline methods, which exhibit shortcomings under various conditions. The reproducible code is available at https://github.com/Ying1123/VTC-artifact
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
VTC achieves fair scheduling even when the output length of the request is unknown by tracking token-level resource usage.
“By tracking token-level resource usage, VTC achieves fair scheduling even when the output length of the request is unknown.”
From Locality-aware Fair Scheduling in LLM Serving (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Achieving efficient online LLM inference with Service Level Objective (SLO) guarantees necessitates isolation among different clients.
“Achieving efficient online LLM inference with Service Level Objective (SLO) guarantees necessitates isolation among different clients [42].”
From Locality-aware Fair Scheduling in LLM Serving (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Splitwise: Efficient Generative LLM Inference Using Phase Splitting
Patel, P., Choukse, E., Zhang, C., Shah, A., Goiri, Í., Maleki, S., & Bianchini, R. (2024) · 2024 ACM/IEEE 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA) · doi:10.1109/isca59077.2024.00019 · Cited by 298
“LLM inference serving is a rapidly developing field, with several recent works optimizing batching [23], [25], [51], [53], [81], scheduling [22], [42], [51], [66], [73], [79], and memory usage [32], [35], [51], [74].”
MethodA Survey: Collaborative Hardware and Software Design in the Era of Large Language Models
Guo, C., Cheng, F., Du, Z., Kiessling, J., Ku, J., Li, S., Li, Z., Ma, M., Molom-Ochir, T., Morris, B., et al. (2025) · IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine · doi:10.1109/mcas.2024.3476008 · Cited by 32
Self-citationSGLang: Efficient Execution of Structured Language Model Programs
Zheng, L., Yin, L., Xie, Z., Sun, C., Huang, J., Yu, C. H., Cao, S., Kozyrakis, C., Stoica, I., Gonzalez, J. E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.07104 · Cited by 145
“We leave its integration with other fair scheduling methods [42] as future work.”
Self-citationDroidSpeak: 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
Locality-aware Fair Scheduling in LLM Serving
Cao, S., Wang, Y., Mao, Z., Hsu, P.-L., Yin, L., Xia, T., Li, D., Liu, S., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.14312
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheng, Y., Cao, S., Li, D., Zhu, B., Li, Z., Zhuo, D., Gonzalez, J. E., & Stoica, I.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2401.00588
- References
- 0
- Type
- Preprint
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.
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