Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

The paper argues that for augmented LLM inference, scheduling order and batch sizing—not raw generation speed—are the main levers for SLO-satisfying throughput.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:38 UTC pith:FLVY5AA4

load-bearing objection A plausible and useful scheduling extension for augmented LLM serving; the design is coherent, but the evaluation needs tightening — inconsistent gains, no variance, no comparison with the closest prior work, and no sensitivity analysis for the predictor. the 6 major comments →

arxiv 2512.04013 v3 pith:FLVY5AA4 submitted 2025-12-03 cs.CL

AugServe: Adaptive Request Scheduling for Augmented Large Language Model Inference Serving

Ying Wang , Zhen Jin , Jiexiong Xu , Wenhai Lin , Yiquan Chen , Wenzhi Chen This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords augmented LLM inferencerequest schedulingeffective throughputservice-level objectivetwo-stage schedulingdynamic token batchingtime-to-first-tokenhead-of-line blocking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper is trying to establish that the biggest obstacle to goodput in augmented LLM serving is scheduling, not raw throughput: first-come-first-served queues let long tool-call requests block short ones, and a fixed token batch limit squanders GPU memory. AugServe addresses both with a two-stage scheduler that first ranks requests by a predicted cost (prefill, decode, API-call memory residency, swap/recompute), then re-ranks them after the external call returns using observed return lengths and the actual context-handling policy. It also recomputes a token budget each iteration from free GPU memory plus preemptible paused-request memory, bounded to avoid oscillations. In the paper's measurements on two datasets and three GPU types, this raises SLO-satisfying throughput by 4.7x over vLLM and 3.3x over InferCept and cuts TTFT by up to 96.3% and 95.0%. A sympathetic reader would care because tool-using LLMs are becoming part of web applications, and the paper shows the gains come from scheduling policy rather than model changes.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that effective throughput in augmented LLM serving is set less by decode speed than by request ordering and batch sizing. Two correctable failures are identified: FCFS scheduling lets tool-call pauses and long returns block short requests, and a fixed token batch limit is wrong at both low and high load. AugServe's mechanism is a scheduling value V that turns a request's predicted and later observed resource consumption into one priority number: Stage I ranks with predicted output length, call duration, return length, and context-handling policy; Stage II re-ranks with the actual return length and policy. A per-iteration token budget, computed from free and pause

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scheduling value Vi, a scalar per-request cost. Stage I computes it from polynomial cost models of prefill, decode, API-call memory residency, swap-out, and recomputation (Eqs. 9-15). Stage II corrects it using the observed API return length and the chosen context-handling policy (Eqs. 16-25), then adds an anti-starvation term α·waiting_time (Eq. 26). The second mechanism is a dynamic token budget: each iteration, available GPU memory is computed as free memory plus (by default all of) paused-request memory, and token_budget = Gavail/M, clamped to [β_low, β_high] × target_max (Eqs. 27-32). The scheduling value does the prioritization work; the token budget does

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the hand-built cost model plus the small predictor's output-length and call-duration estimates rank requests by their true service cost accurately enough that the two-stage reordering reduces total queueing delay rather than creating new priority inversions.

What would settle it

Run AugServe with the same scheduler and dynamic batching but replace the predictor's output with random output-length and call-duration values; if SLO-satisfying throughput stays close to the reported numbers, the prediction-guided scheduling value is not the active ingredient. Alternatively, measure the rank correlation between the final scheduling value V_final and each request's actual end-to-end processing time; a correlation near zero would contradict the mechanism's stated function.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Serving systems for tool-calling LLMs can raise SLO attainment without changing the model: replacing FCFS with predicted-cost ordering and static batch limits with memory-derived ones is enough.
  • Because the scheduler tracks external call duration and return length, systems can sustain higher load while keeping time-to-first-token under the SLO; the paper shows goodput staying high where baselines collapse at loads above 4 req/s.
  • Dynamic batching makes the system more robust to bursty arrivals: under Gamma-distributed traffic with CV up to 2, AugServe degrades far less than fixed-limit baselines.
  • The prediction overhead is claimed to be under 1% of request time, making the scheduling policy practical to run online in a serving loop.
  • The two-stage correction means prediction errors do not accumulate: even if Stage I misranks a request, Stage II re-ranks it after the external call returns using observed data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I would expect the two-stage idea to transfer to any agentic workload where the model pauses for an external event—multi-turn tool use, retrieval with long documents, or database queries—because the cost asymmetry is the same: a prediction before the pause and an observation after it. The paper does not test these settings.
  • The reported gains depend on the trained predictor's accuracy (65% on Merge, 85% on ToolBench). A useful extension would be a sensitivity sweep that degrades or disables the predictor to find the accuracy threshold at which AugServe's advantage over FCFS disappears; the paper does not provide it.
  • Because the cost model is linear in KV memory and swap/recompute time, the same value function could also drive scheduling across heterogeneous GPUs or disaggregated prefill/decode servers, where memory availability itself becomes the scheduler's main signal.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents AugServe, an inference-serving framework for augmented LLMs that invoke external tools. The core contribution is a two-stage adaptive request scheduler: Stage I ranks requests using a prediction-based scheduling value derived from model features (Eqs. 9–15), and Stage II re-prioritizes requests after the external API call returns using runtime-observed return lengths and policies (Eqs. 16–25). An anti-starvation term (Eq. 26) is added, and a dynamic token-level batching mechanism (Eqs. 27–32) adjusts the batch token limit based on GPU memory load. The paper evaluates AugServe against vLLM and InferCept on Merge and ToolBench datasets, with GPT-J-6B and OPT-13B on RTX 4090, H800, and A100 GPUs, reporting large improvements in effective throughput (up to ~4.7× vs vLLM, ~3.3× vs InferCept) and TTFT (up to ~96% reduction). The evaluation includes end-to-end throughput, tail latency, SLO attainment, robustness under Gamma arrivals, and an ablation showing both components contribute.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, AugServe is a useful practical contribution: it directly targets head-of-line blocking caused by tool-call pauses in augmented LLM serving, an area where only a few systems (notably InferCept) exist. The two-stage scheduling idea—using predictions for initial ordering and runtime corrections after the API call—is sensible and the ablation indicates both dynamic batching and scheduling add value. The work also provides a clear motivation via measurements of FCFS behavior and length variability. However, the central claims are currently under-supported: the closest prior scheduling work [31] is not compared, the predictor's accuracy is asserted to be 'sufficient' without sensitivity analysis, the anti-starvation formula appears to have a sign inconsistency, and several parameters (α, β bounds, γ) are unreported. These are fixable but must be addressed before the results can be considered robust.

major comments (6)
  1. [§4.3, Eq. (26); Algorithm 1, line 28] Equation (26) defines V_sched_i = V_final_i + α·(now − last_schedule_time_i), and Algorithm 1 sorts queues by this value. The text states that the scheduler should 'prioritize those requests with lower expected costs' (§4.3), implying an ascending sort on V. With an ascending sort, adding a positive waiting-time term makes long-waiting requests have larger values and thus lower priority, which is the opposite of the stated anti-starvation goal. If the sort is descending, then cost-based ordering is reversed elsewhere. Please specify the sort direction and correct Eq. (26) or the algorithm (e.g., subtract the waiting-time term) so that the mechanism actually implements the claimed fairness.
  2. [§5.1, §5.2, Related Work] The closest prior work on augmented-LLM inference scheduling, 'Fast inference for augmented large language models' [31], is cited in Related Work but is never used as a baseline. Since that work also predicts output lengths and API-related costs for reordering, the evaluation against vLLM and InferCept alone does not support the claim that AugServe advances the state of the art for augmented-LLM scheduling. Add [31] as a baseline or explicitly justify its exclusion based on operational differences (e.g., different interception mechanism).
  3. [§4.2, §4.3] The scheduling values in Eqs. (13)–(15) and (20)–(22) depend directly on predicted output length and API duration. §4.2 reports 65% bucket accuracy on Merge and 85% on ToolBench and asserts 'These levels are sufficient' without supporting evidence. With 65% accuracy, roughly a third of requests are assigned to the wrong cost class; a request predicted short but actually long can be placed at the head of the queue, causing head-of-line blocking. Stage II corrects only after the API call returns, so policy-selection errors in Eqs. (4)–(8) persist. Please add a sensitivity analysis that varies predictor accuracy (e.g., oracle predictions, actual predictions, and a deliberately weaker predictor) and report how goodput changes, or provide evidence that predicted cost correlates with measured cost. Without this, the robustness of the headline gains under misprediction is unvalidated.
  4. [Abstract; Introduction; §5.2.1] The reported improvement factors are inconsistent: the abstract says 4.7× vs vLLM and 3.3× vs InferCept; the introduction says 4.7× vs vLLM and 3.7× vs InferCept; §5.2.1 states average 5.9× vs vLLM and 3.4× vs InferCept on H800 with Merge. Moreover, Table 3 shows only a marginal gain over vLLM on ToolBench at 4.0 req/s (1.11 vs 1.09). Please reconcile these numbers and report per-configuration results with multiple runs or error bars, so the reader can assess the variance of the headline improvements.
  5. [§4.3, §4.4] The framework depends on several hand-set parameters that are never reported or swept: α in Eq. (26), β_low, β_high, and target_max in §4.4, and γ in Eq. (31). These parameters directly control the scheduling-fairness trade-off and the batching bounds, so the measured gains may be sensitive to their tuning. Please report the values used in the experiments and include a sensitivity study (e.g., variation of α, β bounds, and γ) to demonstrate that the results are not artifacts of a particular tuning.
  6. [§4.2, §5.1] The predictor is trained on the Merge and ToolBench datasets (§4.2), and the serving evaluation uses the same datasets (§5.1). This raises a possible information-leak concern for the scheduling-value predictions: if the requests served in §5 are the same ones used to train the BERT predictor, the predictor has already seen their output-length distributions. Please clarify whether the served requests are disjoint from the training split, and if not, discuss the implications for the reported gains. Ideally, retrain on a separate split or measure sensitivity to train/test overlap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figures 2–15] Many figure captions and axis labels contain rendering artifacts (e.g., sequences like '/uni00000014/uni00000011/...'), making the plots hard to read. These must be fixed to meet publication standards.
  2. [Table 7] Header typo: 'attatinment' should be 'attainment'.
  3. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'Lower right is better,' which is ambiguous and likely a typo. The axes are log-scaled; clarify that lower values are better on both axes.
  4. [§5.4] The sentence 'with a load is 2.0 req/s, this design increases vLLM’s 0.22 req/s and InferCept’s 0.28 req/s to 0.35 req/s' is grammatically unclear. It should specify that the dynamic-batching module (AugServe w/ MaxBatch) achieves 0.35 req/s on that load, compared to the two FCFS baselines.
  5. [§4.3, Eq. (26)] The notation 'last_schedule_time_i' should be defined precisely, and the units of α should be stated. Also, the phrase 'waiting time is measured as the difference between the current time and the last scheduling time' is ambiguous about whether the last scheduling time is per-request or global.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim is an externally benchmarked, measured system comparison, and no derivation step reduces a prediction to its fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is that two-stage scheduling (Eqs. 13-15, 20-25, 26) and dynamic token batching (Eqs. 27-32) improve effective throughput and TTFT. That claim is not derived from the cost model; it is measured empirically against external systems (vLLM, InferCept) on external datasets (Merge from InferCept [1], ToolBench from ToolLLM [28]), satisfying the 'externally falsifiable' criterion. The scheduling value is a hand-constructed heuristic that orders requests; the outcome metric (goodput, number of SLO-satisfying completions) is measured independently and is not equivalent to the scheduling value or to predictor outputs. The BERT predictor is trained on Merge/ToolBench with 70/30 and 60/40 splits, so the reported 85%/65% accuracies are on held-out data; even though the end-to-end evaluation uses the same datasets, the serving metric depends on the predictor only via request order, not by construction. No load-bearing self-citations exist: InferCept, vLLM, ToolLLM, and the SJF-scheduling citations are external, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the present authors' prior work. The manuscript passages that deserve flagging are §4.2, asserting 'These levels are sufficient to support our scheduling strategy' without a sensitivity analysis varying prediction accuracy, and §4.4, where target_max and bounds (beta_low, beta_high, alpha) are undisclosed; these are reproducibility/validity gaps, not exhibitable reductions of 'prediction' to 'input.' There is also a minor numeric inconsistency (abstract 4.7x/3.3x vs. §5.2.1 5.9x/3.4x on Merge), which is a reporting issue, not circularity. Proposition 1 is straightforward algebra from an explicit service-time model and does not smuggle in the target result. Honest non-finding: score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; its inventions are algorithmic: a two-stage scheduling value and a dynamic batch-limit rule. The main fitted/hand-chosen components are the predictor, α, batching bounds, and γ, none of which are reported with values or sensitivity analysis.

free parameters (4)
  • BERT predictor (fine-tuned) = 65% output-length accuracy on Merge, 85% on ToolBench; API-duration MSE ≈5s and 0.4s
    Stage I scheduling relies on predicted output length and API call duration from a BERT-base model trained on the same two datasets used for evaluation (§4.2).
  • α (anti-starvation coefficient)
    Eq. (26) weights waiting time against scheduling value; no value or sensitivity analysis is reported, yet it controls the fairness/throughput trade-off.
  • β_low, β_high, target_max (batching bounds)
    §4.4 determines these via offline profiling and clamps the dynamic token limit; the profiled values and procedure are not given, so the clamping behavior is unreproducible.
  • γ (reusable paused-memory fraction) = default γ=1
    Eq. (31) assumes all paused KV memory can be preempted; this default is chosen without stated measurement or sensitivity analysis.
axioms (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The cost model in Eqs. (9)-(25) captures actual latency and memory cost of requests well enough for value-based ranking.
    Scheduling values drive all ordering decisions, but the paper provides no validation that these formulas correlate with measured request cost or end-to-end latency.
  • domain assumption The BERT predictor's accuracy levels (65%/85%) are sufficient for scheduling decisions.
    §4.2 states the levels are 'sufficient to support our scheduling strategy', but no sensitivity analysis around predictor accuracy is presented.
  • domain assumption The chosen SLOs (TTFT < 1s, normalized latency < 10x iteration time) define effective throughput appropriately.
    Taken from prior work [12, 35]; all goodput numbers depend on these thresholds.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 36664 in / 12464 out tokens · 110089 ms · 2026-08-03T18:38:51.285947+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AugServe: Adaptive Request Scheduling for Augmented Large Language Model Inference Serving." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLVY5AA4

@misc{pith2026251204013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AugServe: Adaptive Request Scheduling for Augmented Large Language Model Inference Serving},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLVY5AA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.04013}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As augmented large language models (LLMs) with external tools become increasingly popular in web applications, improving augmented LLM inference serving efficiency and optimizing service-level objectives (SLOs) are critical for enhancing user experience. To achieve this, inference systems must maximize request handling within latency constraints, referred to as increasing effective throughput. However, existing systems face two major challenges: (i) reliance on first-come-first-served (FCFS) scheduling causes severe head-of-line blocking, leading to queuing delays exceeding the SLOs for many requests; and (ii) static batch token limit, which fails to adapt to fluctuating loads and hardware conditions. Both of these factors degrade effective throughput and service quality. This paper presents AugServe, an efficient inference framework designed to reduce queueing latency and enhance effective throughput for augmented LLM inference services. The core idea of AugServe is a two-stage adaptive request scheduling strategy. Specifically, AugServe combines the inference features of augmented LLM requests to optimize the order of scheduling decisions (stage I). These decisions are continuously refined with runtime information (stage II), adapting to both request characteristics and system capabilities. In addition, AugServe dynamically adjusts the token batching mechanism based on hardware status and real-time load, further enhancing throughput performance. Experimental results show that AugServe achieves 4.7x and 3.3x higher effective throughput than vLLM and InferCept, while reducing time-to-first-token (TTFT) by up to 96.3% and 95.0%, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04013 by Jiexiong Xu, Wenhai Lin, Wenzhi Chen, Ying Wang, Yiquan Chen, Zhen Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Augmented LLM inference process. invoking external tools (e.g., web APIs, database, or special￾ized models) during inference [6, 7, 14, 22, 23, 27, 29]. This approach enables augmented LLMs to perform more complex tasks such as arithmetic computation [5, 15, 36], real-time information retrieval [11, 33], and web interactions [26, 40], gradually positioning them as a core component of web ser￾vices. Augment… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Queueing latency (s) distribution of InferCept under 4.0req/s request rate. 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 Request Rate (req/s) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Goodput (req/s) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective throughput (req/s) and TTFT (s) with FCFS and random scheduling under different request rates. adaptive design avoids inefficiently relying on a single policy and further reduces memory waste and inference latency. 3 Motivation We focus on maximizing effective throughput under SLO con￾straints in augmented LLM inference services, as it directly impacts user experience. However, existing inference… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Input & output & API return length distribution. 0 32 128 256 32+256 API Return Length 0 100 200 300 Average TTFT (s) prompt32+out32 prompt32+out512 prompt512+out32 prompt512+out512 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Effective throughput (req/s) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Higher is better. 5.2.1 Effective Throughput [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Average time-to-first-token (TTFT) (s) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Lower right is better, i.e., shorter response time and queueing time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 1 2 3 4 Avg Norm Lat (s/token) GPT-J-6B-1×4090 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 1 2 3 4 OPT-13B-1×H800 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 1 2 3 4 OPT-13… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Average token Latency (s/token) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Lower right is better, i.e., sustains higher serving load [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Breakdown of AugServe components with Merge dataset, OPT-13B, and an H800 GPU. fall to 0.25 req/s and 0.16 req/s, respectively. Overall, across both datasets and all load levels, AugServe consistently deliv￾ers higher goodput than vLLM and InferCept, and maintains stable performance even under heavy load. We also report the corresponding SLOs attainment under the same experimental setting in Appendix B. O… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: SLO attainment (%) with SLOs comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Higher is better. 1 2 3 4 5 Request Rate (req/s) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Goodput (req/s)GPT-J-6B-1×4090 1 2 3 4 5 Request Rate (req/s) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 OPT-13B-1×H800 1 2 3 4 5 Request Rate (req/s) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 OPT-13B-2×A100 vLLM InferCept AugServe (a) Merge datase… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Effective throughput (req/s) with 5×SLOs comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Higher is better. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 300 600 900 1200 P95 TTFT (s) GPT-J-6B-1×4090 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 300 600 900 OPT-13B-1×H800 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 300 600 900 OPT-13B-2×A100 vLLM InferCept AugServe (a) Merge… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: P95 time-to-first-token (TTFT) (s) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Lower right is better, i.e., shorter response time and queueing time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 P95 Norm Lat (s/token) GPT-J-6B-1×4090 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 OPT-13B-1×H800 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 OPT-13B-2… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: P95 token Latency (s/token) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Lower right is better, i.e., sustains higher serving load. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 20 Avg TPOT (s/token) GPT-J-6B-1×4090 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 OPT-13B-1×H800 1 2 3 4 5 6 Request Rate (req/s) 0 5 10 15 OPT-13B-2×A100 vLLM InferCep… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Average time-per-output-token (TPOT) (s/token) comparison among vLLM, InferCept, and AugServe on Merge and ToolBench datasets with different models and GPUs. Lower right is better, i.e., sustains higher serving load. 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Taming Request Imbalance: SLO-Aware Scheduling for Disaggregated LLM Inference

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Kairos improves SLO attainment and throughput in LLM serving by adapting to request length imbalance with priority scheduling and adaptive batching.

  2. Parallelizing Tool Execution and LLM Generation for Low-Latency Agent Serving

    cs.DC 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Pattern-aware speculative tool execution cuts agent end-to-end latency by roughly half and observed tool latency by about 1.8× by overlapping predicted tools with LLM generation.

  3. Efficient Multi-round LLM Inference over Disaggregated Serving

    cs.DC 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    AMPD adaptively routes incremental prefill tasks between prefill and decode workers and reorders queued prefill jobs to improve SLO attainment for multi-round LLM inference under prefill-decode disaggregation.

  4. Taming Request Imbalance: SLO-Aware Scheduling for Disaggregated LLM Inference

    cs.DC 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Kairos applies urgency-based priority scheduling on prefill and slack-guided adaptive batching on decode to raise TTFT, TPOT, and end-to-end SLO attainment by up to 33.8% and decode throughput by up to 19.3% versus baselines.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Infercept: efficient intercept support for augmented large language model inference

    Reyna Abhyankar, Zijian He, Vikranth Srivatsa, Hao Zhang, and Yiying Zhang. Infercept: efficient intercept support for augmented large language model inference. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    Taming {Throughput-Latency} tradeoff in {LLM} inference with {Sarathi-Serve}

    Amey Agrawal, Nitin Kedia, Ashish Panwar, Jayashree Mohan, Nipun Kwatra, Bhargav Gulavani, Alexey Tumanov, and Ramachandran Ramjee. Taming {Throughput-Latency} tradeoff in {LLM} inference with {Sarathi-Serve}. In18th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 24), pages 117–134, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Revisiting service level objectives and system level metrics in large language model serving

    Anonymous. Revisiting service level objectives and system level metrics in large language model serving. InSubmitted to ACL Rolling Review - February 2025,

    2025

  4. [4]

    Model context protocol (mcp)

    Anthropic. Model context protocol (mcp). https:// modelcontextprotocol.io, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    From good to great: Improving math reasoning with tool-augmented interleaf prompting

    Nuo Chen, Hongguang Li, Baoyuan Wang, and Jia Li. From good to great: Improving math reasoning with tool-augmented interleaf prompting. In Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Greg Durrett, Peter Jansen, Ben Lipkin, Danilo Neves Ribeiro, Lionel Wong, Xi Ye, and Wenting Zhao, editors,Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Nat- ural Language Reasoning and Structured Explanati...

    2024

  6. [6]

    Advancing tool-augmented large language models: Inte- grating insights from errors in inference trees.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:106555– 106581, 2024

    Sijia Chen, Yibo Wang, Yi-Feng Wu, Qingguo Chen, Zhao Xu, Weihua Luo, Kaifu Zhang, and Lijun Zhang. Advancing tool-augmented large language models: Inte- grating insights from errors in inference trees.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:106555– 106581, 2024

    2024

  7. [7]

    Chat- cot: Tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning on chat-based large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14323, 2023

    Zhipeng Chen, Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Zheng Gong, Wayne Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. Chat- cot: Tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning on chat-based large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14323, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy.Nature, 630(8017):625– 630, 2024

    Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy.Nature, 630(8017):625– 630, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Mcp-zero: Proactive toolchain construction for llm agents from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01056, 2025

    Xiang Fei, Xiawu Zheng, and Hao Feng. Mcp-zero: Proactive toolchain construction for llm agents from scratch.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01056, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Efficient llm scheduling by learning to rank.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:59006–59029, 2024

    Yichao Fu, Siqi Zhu, Runlong Su, Aurick Qiao, Ion Sto- ica, and Hao Zhang. Efficient llm scheduling by learning to rank.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:59006–59029, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Jetcheva, and Hardi Trivedi

    Anoushka Gade, Jorjeta G. Jetcheva, and Hardi Trivedi. It’s about time: Incorporating temporality in retrieval augmented language models. In2025 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI), pages 75–82, 2025. 10

    2025

  12. [12]

    Apt-serve: Adaptive request scheduling on hybrid cache for scalable llm inference serving.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 3(3):1–28, 2025

    Shihong Gao, Xin Zhang, Yanyan Shen, and Lei Chen. Apt-serve: Adaptive request scheduling on hybrid cache for scalable llm inference serving.Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data, 3(3):1–28, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Asynchronous llm function calling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07017, 2024

    In Gim, Seung-seob Lee, and Lin Zhong. Asynchronous llm function calling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.07017, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    A study on classi- fication based concurrent api calls and optimal model combination for tool augmented llms for ai agent.Sci- entific Reports, 15(1):20579, 2025

    HeounMo Go and SangHyun Park. A study on classi- fication based concurrent api calls and optimal model combination for tool augmented llms for ai agent.Sci- entific Reports, 15(1):20579, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Toolkengpt: Augmenting frozen language models with massive tools via tool embeddings.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:45870–45894, 2023

    Shibo Hao, Tianyang Liu, Zhen Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Toolkengpt: Augmenting frozen language models with massive tools via tool embeddings.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:45870–45894, 2023

    2023

  16. [16]

    Shuffleinfer: Disaggregate llm inference for mixed downstream workloads.ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 2025

    CunChen Hu, HeYang Huang, LiangLiang Xu, XuSheng Chen, Chenxi Wang, Jiang Xu, Shuang Chen, Hao Feng, Sa Wang, Yungang Bao, et al. Shuffleinfer: Disaggregate llm inference for mixed downstream workloads.ACM Transactions on Architecture and Code Optimization, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Tightllm: Maximizing throughput for llm inference via adaptive offloading policy.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2025

    Yitao Hu, Xiulong Liu, Guotao Yang, Linxuan Li, Kai Zeng, Zhixin Zhao, Sheng Chen, Laiping Zhao, Wenxin Li, and Keqiu Li. Tightllm: Maximizing throughput for llm inference via adaptive offloading policy.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Accelerating llm serving for multi-turn dialogues with efficient resource management

    Jinwoo Jeong and Jeongseob Ahn. Accelerating llm serving for multi-turn dialogues with efficient resource management. InProceedings of the 30th ACM Inter- national Conference on Architectural Support for Pro- gramming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2, pages 1–15, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    S3: increasing gpu utilization during generative inference for higher throughput

    Yunho Jin, Chun-Feng Wu, David Brooks, and Gu-Yeon Wei. S3: increasing gpu utilization during generative inference for higher throughput. NIPS ’23, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2023. Curran Associates Inc

    2023

  20. [20]

    Optimizing goodput through sharing for batch analytics with deadlines

    Srinivas Karthik, Panagiotis Sioulas, Ahana Pradhan, Raghunandan Subramanya, Ioannis Mytilinis, and Anas- tasia Ailamaki. Optimizing goodput through sharing for batch analytics with deadlines. InEDBT, pages 332– 344, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Efficient memory manage- ment for large language model serving with pagedatten- tion

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory manage- ment for large language model serving with pagedatten- tion. InProceedings of the 29th symposium on operating systems principles, pages 611–626, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Gear: Augmenting language models with generalizable and ef- ficient tool resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08775, 2023

    Yining Lu, Haoping Yu, and Daniel Khashabi. Gear: Augmenting language models with generalizable and ef- ficient tool resolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08775, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Augmented language models: a sur- vey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842, 2023

    Grégoire Mialon, Roberto Dessì, Maria Lomeli, Christo- foros Nalmpantis, Ram Pasunuru, Roberta Raileanu, Baptiste Rozière, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Asli Celikyilmaz, et al. Augmented language models: a sur- vey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07842, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Introducing function calling in chatgpt

    OpenAI. Introducing function calling in chatgpt. https: //openai.com/blog/function-calling, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Splitwise: Efficient generative llm inference using phase splitting

    Pratyush Patel, Esha Choukse, Chaojie Zhang, Aashaka Shah, Íñigo Goiri, Saeed Maleki, and Ricardo Bianchini. Splitwise: Efficient generative llm inference using phase splitting. InProceedings of the 51st Annual Interna- tional Symposium on Computer Architecture, ISCA ’24, page 118–132. IEEE Press, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    WebRL: Training LLM web agents via self-evolving online curriculum reinforcement learning

    Zehan Qi, Xiao Liu, Iat Long Iong, Hanyu Lai, Xueqiao Sun, Jiadai Sun, Xinyue Yang, Yu Yang, Shuntian Yao, Wei Xu, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. WebRL: Training LLM web agents via self-evolving online curriculum reinforcement learning. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Tool learning with foun- dation models.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(4):1–40, 2024

    Yujia Qin, Shengding Hu, Yankai Lin, Weize Chen, Ning Ding, Ganqu Cui, Zheni Zeng, Xuanhe Zhou, Yufei Huang, Chaojun Xiao, et al. Tool learning with foun- dation models.ACM Computing Surveys, 57(4):1–40, 2024

    2024

  28. [28]

    ToolLLM: Facilitating large lan- guage models to master 16000+ real-world APIs

    Yujia Qin, Shihao Liang, Yining Ye, Kunlun Zhu, Lan Yan, Yaxi Lu, Yankai Lin, Xin Cong, Xiangru Tang, Bill Qian, Sihan Zhao, Lauren Hong, Runchu Tian, Ruob- ing Xie, Jie Zhou, Mark Gerstein, dahai li, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. ToolLLM: Facilitating large lan- guage models to master 16000+ real-world APIs. In The Twelfth International Conference on Lea...

    2024

  29. [29]

    Tool- former: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Eric Hambro, Luke Zettle- moyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. Tool- former: Language models can teach themselves to use tools.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36:68539–68551, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    DON’t STOP ME NOW: EMBEDDING BASED SCHEDULING FOR LLMS

    Rana Shahout, eran malach, Chunwei Liu, Weifan Jiang, Minlan Yu, and Michael Mitzenmacher. DON’t STOP ME NOW: EMBEDDING BASED SCHEDULING FOR LLMS. InThe Thirteenth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2025. 11

    2025

  31. [31]

    Fast in- ference for augmented large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18248, 2024

    Rana Shahout, Cong Liang, Shiji Xin, Qianru Lao, Yong Cui, Minlan Yu, and Michael Mitzenmacher. Fast in- ference for augmented large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18248, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Flexgen: High-throughput generative inference of large language models with a single gpu

    Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Binhang Yuan, Zhuohan Li, Max Ryabinin, Beidi Chen, Percy Liang, Christopher Ré, Ion Stoica, and Ce Zhang. Flexgen: High-throughput generative inference of large language models with a single gpu. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 31094–31116. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  33. [33]

    Dragin: dynamic retrieval augmented gener- ation based on the information needs of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10081, 2024

    Weihang Su, Yichen Tang, Qingyao Ai, Zhijing Wu, and Yiqun Liu. Dragin: dynamic retrieval augmented gener- ation based on the information needs of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10081, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Wang and A

    B. Wang and A. Komatsuzaki. Gpt-j-6b: A 6 billion pa- rameter autoregressive language model, 2021. Accessed: 2023-09-25

    2021

  35. [35]

    Fast distributed inference serving for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05920, 2023

    Bingyang Wu, Yinmin Zhong, Zili Zhang, Shengyu Liu, Fangyue Liu, Yuanhang Sun, Gang Huang, Xuanzhe Liu, and Xin Jin. Fast distributed inference serving for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.05920, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    A toolbox, not a hammer– multi-tag: Scaling math reasoning with multi-tool aggre- gation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18973, 2025

    Bohan Yao and Vikas Yadav. A toolbox, not a hammer– multi-tag: Scaling math reasoning with multi-tool aggre- gation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18973, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Orca: A distributed serving system for {Transformer-Based} generative models

    Gyeong-In Yu, Joo Seong Jeong, Geon-Woo Kim, Soo- jeong Kim, and Byung-Gon Chun. Orca: A distributed serving system for {Transformer-Based} generative models. In16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22), pages 521–538, 2022

    2022

  38. [38]

    {SHEPHERD}: Serving {DNNs} in the wild

    Hong Zhang, Yupeng Tang, Anurag Khandelwal, and Ion Stoica. {SHEPHERD}: Serving {DNNs} in the wild. In20th USENIX Symposium on Networked Sys- tems Design and Implementation (NSDI 23), pages 787– 808, 2023

    2023

  39. [39]

    Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068, 2022

    Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Webpilot: a versatile and au- tonomous multi-agent system for web task execution with strategic exploration

    Yao Zhang, Zijian Ma, Yunpu Ma, Zhen Han, Yu Wu, and V olker Tresp. Webpilot: a versatile and au- tonomous multi-agent system for web task execution with strategic exploration. InProceedings of the Thirty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Seventh Conference on Innovative Appli- cations of Artificial Intelligence and Fifteenth Sym...

    2025

  41. [41]

    Response length perception and sequence scheduling: an llm-empowered llm infer- ence pipeline

    Zangwei Zheng, Xiaozhe Ren, Fuzhao Xue, Yang Luo, Xin Jiang, and Yang You. Response length perception and sequence scheduling: an llm-empowered llm infer- ence pipeline. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS ’23, Red Hook, NY , USA, 2023. Curran Asso- ciates Inc

    2023

  42. [42]

    {DistServe}: Disaggregating prefill and decoding for goodput-optimized large language model serving

    Yinmin Zhong, Shengyu Liu, Junda Chen, Jianbo Hu, Yibo Zhu, Xuanzhe Liu, Xin Jin, and Hao Zhang. {DistServe}: Disaggregating prefill and decoding for goodput-optimized large language model serving. In 18th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 24), pages 193–210, 2024. Table 5: Notation and definitions of key symbols. Symbo...

    2024

  43. [2024]

    Association for Computational Linguistics