Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

DeltaLLM: A Training-Free Framework Exploiting Temporal Sparsity for Efficient Edge LLM Inference

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read DeltaLLM claims that LLM attention can be made roughly 60% sparse during prefilling—and about 57% across both inference stages—by replacing key vectors with thresholded temporal deltas, with no fine-tuning and no accuracy loss.

desk verdict Plausible but incomplete: a training-free delta-attention sparsity method for small LLMs whose efficiency claim rests on a sparsity metric that overstates actual compute savings. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.19608 v1 pith:HBYOTPW5 submitted 2025-07-25 cs.AI eess.SP

Jiawen Qi , Chang Gao , Zhaochun Ren , Qinyu Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIeess.SP
keywords temporalsparsityedgeLLMinferenceattentionpruningdeltanetworktraining-freeoptimizationKVcachehybridBitNet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that LLM attention on edge devices can be made much cheaper without any fine-tuning by exploiting temporal sparsity: instead of computing attention from every key vector at every step, it thresholds the change between consecutive key vectors and treats small changes as zero, yielding a sparse delta matrix. The paper reports that this raises attention sparsity from 0% to roughly 60% during prefilling and about 57% across both prefilling and decoding on two small models, with no accuracy loss and occasional gains, such as a SQuAD-v2 F1 improvement from 29.63 to 30.97 on BitNet. The payoff would be inference speedups and energy savings on resource-constrained devices, because sparse deltas mean fewer non-zero multiplications. The framework is training-free and plugs into existing KV-cache based inference pipelines.

What carries the argument

The central object is the temporal-delta key matrix ΔK: each row is the difference between consecutive key vectors, entries below a threshold θ are set to zero, and a running reference vector is kept. Attention outputs are then computed recursively as R(t) = Δa(t)B + R(t−1), so only the non-zero deltas contribute fresh multiplications. The framework constructs ΔK top-down from the keys so that the dense first row aligns with the attention sink after masking, and it mixes full attention inside a local window with delta attention outside, giving an effective sparsity of Sc = Sm·(1−W/n).

What would settle it

Run DeltaLLM on an actual edge processor and compare wall-clock time and energy to dense attention at the same accuracy settings; if a 57% sparsity reading does not produce a correspondingly shorter runtime or lower power draw, the efficiency claim fails even though the accuracy numbers may hold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

DeltaLLM claims that the key matrix in attention, rather than the query matrix, should be converted into a temporally sparse delta matrix by thresholding the difference between consecutive key vectors, with the first key vector as the dense basis. Combined with a hybrid attention mechanism that computes full attention inside a small context window and delta-based approximate attention outside it, this preserves the attention sink and nearby context while zeroing most of the rest. On the evaluated edge-friendly models, the result is dense attention becoming about 60% sparse at prefilling and roughly 57% sparse across both stages, with accuracy essentially unchanged and F1 improving on SQuAD-v2.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the sparsity percentages it reports translate directly into real speed and energy savings on edge hardware, because its equations count zeros but no latency, throughput, or power measurements are given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Deploying DeltaLLM on edge-sized LLMs can make prefilling attention roughly 60% sparse and full-pipeline attention roughly 57% sparse with no retraining.
  • The method relies only on stored keys and deltas, so it adds no extra memory beyond the KV cache and fits existing inference pipelines.
  • It combines with quantization-friendly models such as BitNet, pointing toward stacked compression on low-power hardware.
  • The hyperparameters θ and γ provide a tunable accuracy–sparsity trade-off, letting a deployment choose how aggressive to prune.
  • The SQuAD-v2 F1 gain from 29.63 to 30.97 on BitNet indicates that the approximation does not merely preserve quality; on some tasks it can improve it.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper measures sparsity, not wall-clock time; whether 57% sparsity yields a real speedup on edge hardware depends on sparse-matrix support and on the cumulative additions in the recurrence, which still execute even for zero deltas.
  • If the reported temporal sparsity carries over to other model scales and longer contexts, the same delta construction could be applied to larger LLMs, but the paper only tests short-context, small-model settings.
  • The accuracy gain on SQuAD-v2 hints that delta approximation may act as a mild regularizer, but the paper does not investigate why some tasks improve while others degrade slightly.
  • Existing hardware accelerators designed for delta-based RNNs and CNNs could potentially be repurposed for LLM attention, but the paper does not demonstrate this and would need cycle-accurate or silicon measurements.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DeltaLLM, a training-free inference-time framework that applies Delta Network temporal sparsity to attention keys, combined with a hybrid full-attention local window and delta-approximation outside the window. The authors claim that this increases attention sparsity to about 57-60% on BitNet-b1.58-2B-4T and Llama3.2-1B-Instruct across prefilling and decoding, with preserved or slightly improved accuracy, and argue this enables efficient edge LLM inference. Experiments report accuracy and a sparsity metric S_c, but no runtime, throughput, or energy measurements.

Significance. If the efficiency claim were substantiated, DeltaLLM would be a useful training-free sparse attention method for edge LLMs. The authors correctly identify that existing sparse attention methods target high-end hardware and long contexts, and the proposal to exploit the existing KV-cache for storing delta vectors is clever and low-overhead. The paper is explicit about being training-free and evaluates on edge-appropriate models. However, the central efficiency claim currently rests on a sparsity metric that does not reflect actual computation reduction, and the accuracy results are based on single runs with configuration choices made after seeing the results. The contribution is therefore a promising idea with preliminary evidence rather than a demonstrated system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III-C, Eq. (6)] The computational sparsity metric S_c in Eq. (6) is presented as the main efficiency measure, but it does not equal the reduction in attention computation. Eq. (4) defines R(t)=Δa(t)B+R(t−1); even when Δa(t)=0, the dense vector R(t−1) must be added to every output element, and the accumulated score matrix is dense before the softmax. The subsequent softmax and PV multiplication are also dense, and the full-attention window in the hybrid mechanism (Section III-B) is computed densely. Thus a delta-matrix sparsity of 57% does not imply a 57% reduction in FLOPs or latency; on hardware without sparse-matrix support it may imply no speedup at all. The abstract's claim of enabling efficient edge inference is therefore unsupported without measured latency, throughput, or energy numbers (or at least a complete FLOP model that includes the accumulation, softmax, and value-projection operations).
  2. [Section IV-A/B, Tables I-III] All accuracy results are reported from single runs with no seeds, variance, or confidence intervals. Moreover, the end-to-end SQuAD configuration in Table III uses θ=1.0, γ=0.1, and Wd=4, which were selected because they gave the best average performance in the prefilling-only experiments on the same benchmark suite; this is test-set tuning rather than a predictive evaluation. The reported improvement of BitNet F1 from 29.63 to 30.97 is therefore not strong evidence of accuracy preservation or improvement. Please report multiple seeds with standard deviations and use a held-out validation split or a pre-registered configuration.
  3. [Section III-A] The claim that strategy (3), top-down key deltas, achieves the highest accuracy is supported only by a conceptual diagram (Fig. 3) and a narrative about attention sinks. No quantitative comparison of strategies (1), (2), and (3) is provided, even though this choice is central to the accuracy-preservation claim. Please include the empirical comparison or reference a figure with measured accuracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section I] The name 'SteamingLLM' should be 'StreamingLLM'.
  2. [Tables I and II] The header 'Accn' is not defined; it should be spelled out as 'Accuracy' or clarified in the caption.
  3. [Section IV-B, Table III] For SQuAD-v2, report Exact Match (EM) in addition to F1, and clarify why only the HasAns subset is reported.
  4. [Section II-C, Eq. (2)] The threshold comparison uses |a(t)−â(t−1)|; clarify how â(t−1) is initialized for the first vector and how the reference vector is updated when the delta is zeroed.
  5. [Section III-B] The exact procedure for computing attention scores with cached delta keys is not fully specified; include a pseudocode block for the hybrid attention computation to make the method reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the delta sparsity numbers are direct measurements of the constructed delta matrices, and the accuracy evaluations are made against unmodified baselines; the efficiency metric concerns are validity issues, not circular derivations.

full rationale

DeltaLLM's core mechanism is not derived from its own output. The delta-vector construction and recurrence (Eqs. 2-4) are taken from the external Delta Network [15], and the reported sparsity values in Tables I-III are direct measurements of the fraction of zeroed entries in the constructed delta-key matrices under chosen thresholds and window sizes, not quantities fitted to the accuracy targets. Accuracy is compared against unmodified baseline models using lm-evaluation-harness, so the SQuAD-v2 F1 change is an external benchmark result rather than a quantity forced by the method's definitions. The hyperparameters theta and gamma are chosen from the prefilling benchmark grid, and then the same settings are transferred to SQuAD-v2; this is post-hoc selection and a statistical robustness concern, but it is not a fitted-input-called-prediction reduction because SQuAD-v2 accuracy is a separate evaluation target not used in the selection. The self-citations [16], [20]-[22] provide published hardware measurements (FPGA and SRAM implementations) and are used as motivational background for temporal-sparsity efficiency; they are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for the paper's sparsity measurements. The main weakness is that Eq. (6) labels Sc as 'computational sparsity' while Eq. (4) still requires dense cumulative additions even when delta entries are zero, so the claimed edge-efficiency benefit is under-supported and Sc may not equal real compute savings; however, that is a metric-validity and evidence issue, not a circular derivation that reduces the claim to its own input. No load-bearing self-citation chain or definitional equivalence was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities. Its novelty rests on algorithmic choices, and its claims depend on several unproven assumptions, the most fragile being that delta-matrix sparsity implies real efficiency gains on edge hardware.

free parameters (4)
  • Delta threshold theta = 0.6 to 1.4 (per model)
    Controls the sparsity of the delta matrix; tuned per model in Tables I and III. The reported accuracy-sparsity trade-off depends on this choice.
  • Window scaling factor gamma = 0.02 to 0.1
    Scales the full-attention context window in prefilling (Eq. 5); tuned in Table II and selected for SQuAD experiments.
  • Max context window Wmax = unspecified
    Upper bound in Eq. (5); its value is never reported, yet it directly affects the measured sparsity.
  • Decoding window size Wd = 4 in scenario (2)
    Fixed context window for full attention during decoding; chosen for the SQuAD experiments without justification.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Delta recurrence is exact when theta=0 and approximates with bounded error when theta>0
    Borrowed from Delta Network [15] and applied to key matrices in Section III-A; no error bound is derived for LLM attention.
  • domain assumption Key vectors change slowly across tokens, resulting in temporal sparsity
    Empirical premise behind the whole approach; alluded to by Fig. 2 but never quantitatively demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Sparsity in the delta matrix translates into computational and energy savings on edge hardware
    Central to the 'efficient edge inference' claim; used in Section III-C and Eq. (6), but never validated with hardware measurements.
  • ad hoc to paper Full attention within a local window plus delta approximation outside preserves accuracy
    Design choice in Section III-B; the accuracy tables provide indirect support, but the mechanism is not theoretically justified.
  • domain assumption lm-evaluation-harness default settings provide reliable zero-shot metrics
    All baselines and results in Section IV rely on this framework; no validation of the setup is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DeltaLLM: A Training-Free Framework Exploiting Temporal Sparsity for Efficient Edge LLM Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBYOTPW5

@misc{pith2026250719608,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DeltaLLM: A Training-Free Framework Exploiting Temporal Sparsity for Efficient Edge LLM Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBYOTPW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.19608}
}
read the original abstract

Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) on edge devices remains challenging due to their quadratically increasing computations with the sequence length. Existing studies for dynamic attention pruning are designed for hardware with massively parallel computation capabilities, such as GPUs or TPUs, and aim at long context lengths (e.g., 64K), making them unsuitable for edge scenarios. We present DeltaLLM, a training-free framework that exploits temporal sparsity in attention patterns to enable efficient LLM inference across both the prefilling and decoding stages, on resource-constrained edge devices. DeltaLLM introduces an accuracy- and memory-aware delta matrix construction strategy that introduces temporal sparsity, and a context-aware hybrid attention mechanism that combines full attention in a local context window with delta approximation outside it to increase accuracy. We evaluate our framework on the edge-device-friendly BitNet-b1.58-2B-4T model and Llama3.2-1B-Instruct model across diverse language tasks. The results show that on BitNet, our framework increases the attention sparsity from 0% to 60% during the prefilling stage with slight accuracy improvement on the WG task, and 0% to 57% across both the prefilling and decoding stages, with even higher F1 score from 29.63 to 30.97 on SQuAD-v2 task. On the Llama model, it can also achieve up to 60% sparsity during the prefilling stage and around 57% across both stages with negligible accuracy drop. These results demonstrate that DeltaLLM offers a promising solution for efficient edge deployment, requiring no fine-tuning and seamlessly integrating with existing inference pipelines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.19608 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Attention computation process using the KV-Caching [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Heatmap of attention scores in two different layers of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of attention score accuracy under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (1) Top-down query deltas: Generate ∆q(t) starting from the top row of the query matrix while keeping keys unchanged. This produces a dense first row in the delta matrix, yielding exact computation for the first attention row. However, after masking, only the top-left …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Workflow of DeltaLLM. During the prefilling stage, the process begins by construct￾ing the delta key matrix ∆K from the input sequence. Using a small context window (e.g., Wp = 1 in the illustration), we compute the attention map through our hybrid mechanism: full atte…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AEyeDE: An Attention-Based Attribution Framework for AI-Generated Text Detection

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Attention attribution maps from a white-box proxy Transformer, classified by a lightweight CNN, provide a competitive and interpretable signal for AI-generated text detection.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4,

    S. Bubeck, V . Chadrasekaran, R. Eldan, J. Gehrke, E. Horvitz, E. Kamar, P. Lee, Y . T. Lee, Y . Li, S. Lundberget al., “Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4,” 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozi `ere, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al. , “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Training-free activation sparsity in large language models,

    J. Liu, P. Ponnusamy, T. Cai, H. Guo, Y . Kim, and B. Athiwaratkun, “Training-free activation sparsity in large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.14690, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Awq: Activation-aware weight quanti- zation for on-device llm compression and acceleration,

    J. Lin, J. Tang, H. Tang, S. Yang, W.-M. Chen, W.-C. Wang, G. Xiao, X. Dang, C. Gan, and S. Han, “Awq: Activation-aware weight quanti- zation for on-device llm compression and acceleration,” Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems , vol. 6, pp. 87–100, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Medusa: Simple llm inference acceleration framework with multiple decoding heads,

    T. Cai, Y . Li, Z. Geng, H. Peng, J. D. Lee, D. Chen, and T. Dao, “Medusa: Simple llm inference acceleration framework with multiple decoding heads,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10774 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Unlocking efficiency in large language model infer- ence: A comprehensive survey of speculative decoding,

    H. Xia, Z. Yang, Q. Dong, P. Wang, Y . Li, T. Ge, T. Liu, W. Li, and Z. Sui, “Unlocking efficiency in large language model infer- ence: A comprehensive survey of speculative decoding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07851, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models,

    M. Sun, Z. Liu, A. Bair, and J. Z. Kolter, “A simple and effective pruning approach for large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.11695, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Attention is naturally sparse with gaussian distributed input,

    Y . Deng, Z. Song, and C. Yang, “Attention is naturally sparse with gaussian distributed input,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02690 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Efficient streaming language models with attention sinks,

    G. Xiao, Y . Tian, B. Chen, S. Han, and M. Lewis, “Efficient streaming language models with attention sinks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17453, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Minference 1.0: Accelerating pre-filling for long-context llms via dynamic sparse attention,

    H. Jiang, Y . Li, C. Zhang, Q. Wu, X. Luo, S. Ahn, Z. Han, A. H. Abdi, D. Li, C.-Y . Lin et al., “Minference 1.0: Accelerating pre-filling for long-context llms via dynamic sparse attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.02490, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation,

    Y . Li, Y . Huang, B. Yang, B. Venkitesh, A. Locatelli, H. Ye, T. Cai, P. Lewis, and D. Chen, “Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 22 947–22 970, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Infllm: Training-free long-context extrapolation for llms with an efficient context memory,

    C. Xiao, P. Zhang, X. Han, G. Xiao, Y . Lin, Z. Zhang, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Infllm: Training-free long-context extrapolation for llms with an efficient context memory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04617 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Flexprefill: A context-aware sparse attention mechanism for efficient long-sequence inference,

    X. Lai, J. Lu, Y . Luo, Y . Ma, and X. Zhou, “Flexprefill: A context-aware sparse attention mechanism for efficient long-sequence inference,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.20766, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Spargeattn: Accurate sparse attention accelerating any model infer- ence,

    J. Zhang, C. Xiang, H. Huang, J. Wei, H. Xi, J. Zhu, and J. Chen, “Spargeattn: Accurate sparse attention accelerating any model infer- ence,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.18137 , 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Delta networks for optimized recurrent network computation,

    D. Neil, J. H. Lee, T. Delbruck, and S.-C. Liu, “Delta networks for optimized recurrent network computation,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2017, pp. 2584–2593

    2017

  8. [16]

    Spartus: A 9.4 top/s fpga-based lstm accelerator exploiting spatio-temporal sparsity,

    C. Gao, T. Delbruck, and S.-C. Liu, “Spartus: A 9.4 top/s fpga-based lstm accelerator exploiting spatio-temporal sparsity,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1098– 1112, 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Skip- convolutions for efficient video processing,

    A. Habibian, D. Abati, T. S. Cohen, and B. E. Bejnordi, “Skip- convolutions for efficient video processing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 2695–2704

    2021

  10. [18]

    Deltacnn: End-to-end cnn inference of sparse frame differences in videos,

    M. Parger, C. Tang, C. D. Twigg, C. Keskin, R. Wang, and M. Stein- berger, “Deltacnn: End-to-end cnn inference of sparse frame differences in videos,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2022, pp. 12 487–12 496

    2022

  11. [19]

    Motiondeltacnn: Sparse cnn inference of frame differences in moving camera videos with spherical buffers and padded convolutions,

    M. Parger, C. Tang, T. Neff, C. D. Twigg, C. Keskin, R. Wang, and M. Steinberger, “Motiondeltacnn: Sparse cnn inference of frame differences in moving camera videos with spherical buffers and padded convolutions,” in ICCV, 2023, pp. 17 246–17 255. [Online]. Available: https://...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Deltarnn: A power-efficient recurrent neural network accelerator,

    C. Gao, D. Neil, E. Ceolini, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “Deltarnn: A power-efficient recurrent neural network accelerator,” in Proceedings of the 2018 ACM/SIGDA International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays, 2018, pp. 21–30

    2018

  13. [21]

    Edge- drnn: Recurrent neural network accelerator for edge inference,

    C. Gao, A. Rios-Navarro, X. Chen, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “Edge- drnn: Recurrent neural network accelerator for edge inference,” IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 419–432, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Deltakws: A 65nm 36nj/decision bio-inspired temporal-sparsity- aware digital keyword spotting ic with 0.6v near-threshold sram,

    Q. Chen, K. Kim, C. Gao, S. Zhou, T. Jang, T. Delbruck, and S.-C. Liu, “Deltakws: A 65nm 36nj/decision bio-inspired temporal-sparsity- aware digital keyword spotting ic with 0.6v near-threshold sram,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Artificial Intelligence , vol....

    2025

  15. [23]

    Delta keyword transformer: Bringing transformers to the edge through dynamically pruned multi-head self- attention,

    Z. Jel ˇcicov´a and M. Verhelst, “Delta keyword transformer: Bringing transformers to the edge through dynamically pruned multi-head self- attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.03479 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan et al. , “The llama 3 herd of models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bitnet: Scaling 1-bit transformers for large language models,

    H. Wang, S. Ma, L. Dong, S. Huang, H. Wang, L. Ma, F. Yang, R. Wang, Y . Wu, and F. Wei, “Bitnet: Scaling 1-bit transformers for large language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11453 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge,

    P. Clark, I. Cowhey, O. Etzioni, T. Khot, A. Sabharwal, C. Schoenick, and O. Tafjord, “Think you have solved question answering? try arc, the ai2 reasoning challenge,” arXiv:1803.05457v1, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions,

    C. Clark, K. Lee, M.-W. Chang, T. Kwiatkowski, M. Collins, and K. Toutanova, “Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/1905.10044

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?

    R. Zellers, A. Holtzman, Y . Bisk, A. Farhadi, and Y . Choi, “Hellaswag: Can a machine really finish your sentence?” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07830

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering,

    T. Mihaylov, P. Clark, T. Khot, and A. Sabharwal, “Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering,” in EMNLP, 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language,

    Y . Bisk, R. Zellers, R. L. Bras, J. Gao, and Y . Choi, “Piqa: Reasoning about physical commonsense in natural language,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11641

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale,

    “Winogrande: An adversarial winograd schema challenge at scale,” 2019

    2019

  24. [32]

    Know what you don’t know: Unanswerable questions for squad,

    P. Rajpurkar, J. Zhang, and P. Liang, “Know what you don’t know: Unanswerable questions for squad,” in ACL 2018, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    The language model evaluation harness,

    L. Gao, J. Tow, B. Abbasi, S. Biderman, S. Black, A. DiPofi, C. Foster, L. Golding, J. Hsu, A. Le Noac’h, H. Li, K. McDonell, N. Muennighoff, C. Ociepa, J. Phang, L. Reynolds, H. Schoelkopf, A. Skowron, L. Sutawika, E. Tang, A. Thite, B. Wang, K. Wang, and A. Zou, “The languag...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.