MOM: Memory-Efficient Offloaded Mini-Sequence Inference for Long Context Language Models

Anima Anandkumar; Cheng Luo; Junyang Zhang; Tianyi Zhu

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

MOM: Memory-Efficient Offloaded Mini-Sequence Inference for Long Context Language Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MOM claims chunked MLPs plus KV offloading cut prefill memory by over half and extend single-GPU context from 155k to 455k tokens.

desk verdict MOM is a real engineering improvement for memory-constrained prefill, but the paper's headline claims against chunked prefill are not supported by the reported experiments and the abstract overstates the measured gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12526 v1 pith:IGVG3EXB submitted 2025-04-16 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Junyang Zhang , Tianyi Zhu , Cheng Luo , Anima Anandkumar This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL

keywords long-contextlanguagemodelinferenceGPUmemoryreductionmini-sequenceprocessingKVcacheoffloadingprefillbottleneckMLPintermediateactivationschunkedcomparisonsingle-GPUcontextextension

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 sets out to show that prefill-stage memory, not the KV cache, is the reason long-context inference overflows a single GPU, and that it can be made a non-issue by chunking only the feed-forward MLP layers. The proposed method, MOM, splits each MLP input into mini-sequences, processes them through the same layer, concatenates the outputs, and offloads the attention KV cache to CPU memory during prefill. The reported result is a halving of peak GPU memory on average across Llama, Qwen, and Mistral models, and on Llama-3.2-8B an extension of maximum context from 155k to 455k tokens on one A100 80GB, with output logits identical to those of the standard model. If true, it matters because it removes prefill memory as the dominant bottleneck and turns decode-stage KV cache into the next target for optimization.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the mini-sequence MLP partition from Algorithm 1: a hidden representation $A \in \mathbb{R}^{B \times S \times d}$ is cut into $M$ chunks of roughly $C$ tokens, each chunk runs through the same MLP block, and the outputs are concatenated for the next layer; attention is left untouched, and the KV cache is offloaded between chunks. Its work is to reduce MLP intermediate activation memory from $S \cdot I$ to roughly $S \cdot I / M$, where $I \approx 4d$ is the expanded hidden width. The exact-equivalence property that makes this sound is that every MLP operation in the tested models is per-token, so $\mathrm{MLP}(\mathrm{concat}(A_1,\ldots,A_M)) = \mathrm{concat}(\mathrm{MLP}(A_1),\ldots,\mathrm{MLP}(A_M))$.

What would settle it

Run MOM on a transformer whose MLP block includes cross-token normalization, time convolution, or any sequence-mixing operation, feed a fixed input through MOM and through the standard full-sequence forward pass, and compare the logits; any nonzero difference falsifies the paper's claim that MOM preserves outputs exactly. A simpler check on the tested models would report the numeric maximum logit difference over many random inputs rather than the one-sentence statement that the logits were identical.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the MLP layers, not attention, set the prefill memory ceiling, and their large intermediate activations are avoidable. Because the operations inside a modern MLP block—SwiGLU projection, gating, residual addition, RMSNorm—apply to each token independently, the input sequence can be partitioned into mini-sequences, pushed through the MLP one chunk at a time, and concatenated without changing any logit. MOM applies this partition at every non-final MLP, sends only the last token's representation through the final MLP and LM head, and combines it with offloading of the KV cache to CPU memory; the cache returns to GPU only for autoregressive decoding. On the paper's measurements this cuts peak memory by more than half on average and raises the maximum single-GPU context of Llama-3.2-8B from 155k to 455k tokens while keeping outputs identical.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every MLP-block operation, including normalization, acts one token at a time, so chunking the sequence and concatenating the results changes nothing; models whose MLP normalizes across tokens or mixes token positions would break the exact-equivalence claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Peak prefill memory stops being the ceiling for single-GPU long-context inference; the residual bottleneck is the decode-stage KV cache that must stay GPU-resident.
On a single A100 80GB, Llama-3.2-8B's maximum context grows from 155k to 455k tokens without output changes.
MOM gives a 35% longer maximum context than conventional chunked prefill, without repeated forward passes.
Since attention layers are unchanged, MOM layers on top of FlashAttention-style and grouped-query attention optimizations without conflicting with them.
The paper's experiments also report the same behavior on Qwen2.5, Mistral NeMo, and 4-bit quantized consumer-GPU setups.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct consequence the paper leaves implicit is that mini-sequence chunk size is a free knob: any chunk size gives the same logits, so a deployment can trade chunk size against memory and latency without changing model behavior.
The same per-token argument would apply to any pointwise block in other architectures, so future models could treat MLP-style blocks as effectively free of sequence-length activation memory and spend optimization effort only on attention and KV state.
Because the outputs are claimed identical, any accuracy differences in long-context evaluations would come from actually fitting a longer context, not from approximation error; that makes needle-test comparisons against a truncated baseline a test of length extension rather than of output fidelity.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: MOM is a real, measurable improvement for memory-constrained prefill, and the core mechanism works. But the abstract's two headline comparisons to chunked prefill—35% longer context and >75% throughput loss if combined with offloading—are not supported by any experiment in the paper. The 455k-token result is impressive but is not compared against chunked prefill at all; a chunked-prefill-plus-offload baseline would likely also eliminate KV memory and reach similar context lengths. The only honest comparison in the paper is against the unoptimized standard model.

What's new: MOM adapts the Mini-Sequence Transformer chunking trick to inference, partitions only MLP activations, processes only the last token through the final MLP and LM head, and hooks into HF's OffloadedCache. That combination is new, and the paper shows it directly with measurements: Table 1 gives memory ratios, Table 2 gives end-to-end latency, and the appendix covers Qwen, Mistral, and a quantized RTX 4080. The memory reductions are real: at 144k tokens, Mini-sequence cuts peak memory to about 59% without offload and 49% with offload. The last-token-only final-layer trick is a nice detail that avoids the LM head's vocabulary-size intermediate.

Where it's soft: First, the missing chunked-prefill baseline is a real gap. Section 4.2 reports only standard 155k vs MOM 455k; no chunked-prefill maximum context number appears anywhere. So the '35% greater context length extension' is unverified. Second, the Section 1 claim that chunked prefill plus offloading would suffer >75% throughput reduction is asserted, not measured; no such configuration appears in Tables 2–4. Third, Equation (2) sizes the KV cache as 2·S·d·L with full hidden dimension, which is wrong for GQA models and contradicts the paper's own 72 GB measurement for Llama-3.2-8B. Fourth, the abstract's 'over 50%' average memory reduction doesn't match Table 1, which averages to about 40% across the eight reported conditions. Minor: the mini-sequence size C is never disclosed, no error bars (though runs are deterministic), and the logit-equivalence test is one sentence with no numbers.

The equivalence argument is sound for the tested RMSNorm/SwiGLU models—every MLP operation is per-token—but the paper should state that condition explicitly.

Who it's for: systems practitioners doing single-GPU long-context inference. It deserves a serious referee; the core result is useful and reproducible, but the paper needs to add the missing baseline and correct the overstated numbers before acceptance.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MOM, a memory-reduction technique for single-GPU long-context LLM inference. MOM partitions the input to each MLP layer into mini-sequences during prefill, processes only the last token through the final MLP and LM head, and offloads the KV cache to CPU memory. The authors argue that because MLPs act per-token, this partitioning leaves model outputs unchanged. They report that MOM reduces peak GPU memory by over 50% on average, extends the maximum context of Llama-3.2-8B on an A100 80GB from 155k to 455k tokens, and achieves a 35% greater context extension than chunked prefill. Experiments cover Llama, Qwen, and Mistral models, including a quantized consumer-GPU setting. The central memory comparisons are based on direct measurements, while the comparison against chunked prefill is mostly asserted rather than measured.

Significance. If the reported numbers are correct, MOM is a practical and simple plug-in that removes MLP intermediate activations as the dominant prefill memory cost for token-wise MLP architectures such as Llama/Qwen/Mistral, leaving the decode-stage KV cache as the main constraint. The strengths of the paper are its direct measurements (Table 1, Figures 5-6), the mathematical simplicity of the per-token chunking argument, the reproducible artifact (the GitHub link), and the broad model coverage including a quantization setting. However, the paper's headline comparative claims against chunked prefill and the 'over 50% on average' memory reduction are not currently supported by the data: the chunked-prefill maximum-context baseline is absent, the asserted >75% throughput loss for chunked prefill with offloading is unmeasured, and Table 1 implies an average reduction closer to 40% than 50%. These issues are fixable with additional experiments and corrected claims, so the result is potentially valuable but needs revision.

major comments (5)

[§1 and §4.2] The comparative claim that MOM achieves '35% greater context length extension' than chunked prefill is not supported by any reported measurement. Section 4.2 and Figure 6 report only the maximum context for Standard (155k) and MOM (455k); the maximum context for chunked prefill, with or without offloading, is never stated. Without this number the 35% figure cannot be verified. The same applies to the assertion in Section 1 that conventional chunked prefill combined with KV-cache offloading 'would suffer a throughput reduction of more than 75%': no chunked-prefill-plus-offload configuration appears in Tables 2-4, Figure 2, or Appendix C. I request a measured chunked-prefill baseline that uses the same OffloadedCache mechanism, reporting its maximum context, TTFT, decode speed, and total latency, and I request that the 75% claim either be supported by that experiment or removed.
[Abstract and Table 1] The abstract claims that MOM 'reduces peak memory usage by over 50% on average', but Table 1 contradicts this. Averaged over the four context lengths, the WITH/NO Mini-sequence ratios are about 64.5% without offloading and 55.7% with offloading, corresponding to reductions of about 35% and 44% respectively. Only the 144k context with offloading (49.065%, i.e., a 50.9% reduction) exceeds 50%. The claim should be corrected or the baseline for the average should be defined explicitly, and the same quantitative standard should be applied to the Qwen and Mistral results in Appendix D, where no numerical memory ratios are reported.
[§3.3, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) sizes the KV cache as 2*S*d*L, which is only valid for multi-head attention in which every head has a separate key/value projection. All models tested in the paper use grouped-query attention: Llama-3.2-8B has n_kv_heads=8 with head_dim=128, so the per-token KV size is 2*n_kv_heads*head_dim*L elements, not 2*d*L elements, a factor of four difference. This overstatement of M_KV materially affects the Section 3.3 and Section 5 conclusion that the decode-stage KV cache is now the dominant remaining bottleneck. Please re-derive the memory model with the actual n_kv_heads and validate the decomposition against the measured memory values in Figure 5.
[§3.1, Algorithm 1, and §4.5] The claim that MOM 'keeps outputs identical' depends on every operation inside the chunked MLP block (matmul, SwiGLU, residual add, RMSNorm) acting strictly per-token. This condition is never stated. It holds for the RMSNorm-based Llama/Qwen/Mistral models tested, but it fails for any MLP block that uses cross-token normalization or sequence mixing, so it is not a universal property of transformers. This should be stated explicitly. In addition, the logit equivalence test in Section 4.5 is described in one sentence with no numbers; I request the maximum absolute logit difference, the number of random inputs, the model configurations, and the random seeds used.
[§4.4 and Appendix D] The claim that MOM demonstrates 'over 50%' memory reduction across Llama, Qwen, and Mistral models is not quantitatively supported for the non-Llama models. Appendix D provides only scatter plots with no numerical memory numbers, and the text says the results 'align with our findings'. Please include the quantitative memory ratios and maximum-context numbers for Qwen2.5-7B and Mistral NeMo, either as tables or in the captions, so that the cross-model claim can be checked.

minor comments (5)

[§4.2 heading] The heading 'Maximium Input Context Length Extension' contains a typo; it should be 'Maximum'.
[Table 3 heading] The heading 'Time to Fisrt Token' contains a typo; it should be 'Time to First Token'.
[§1 and §4] The paper is inconsistent about the model: the abstract and Section 4 use Meta-Llama-3.2-8B, while the introduction reports 'Meta-Llama-3-8B' with the same 72GB-to-35GB numbers. Please unify the model name and ensure Figure 1 and Table 1 refer to the same model and configuration.
[§3.3, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) writes Smax ∝ Mavail / Mintermediate-mini, but this is a proportionality, not a derivation; the text should clarify that actual Smax also depends on how KV cache is managed, otherwise the equation may be read as implying infinite context as M grows.
[§4.3] Table 2 includes 'Chunked Prefill size=8192' but the main text never explains why 8192 is chosen until Appendix C; a one-sentence pointer to Appendix C would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: MOM's memory model is an accounting identity and its equivalence claim is tested directly; the main gaps are missing baselines, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that its central memory claims are arithmetic. Equation (2) is an accounting decomposition: total memory is weights plus KV cache (2·S·d·L) plus intermediate MLP memory (S·I). Equation (3) states that partitioning an S-token MLP input into M chunks reduces live intermediate memory to approximately (S/M)·I, which is true by sequential chunk processing. The 'identical outputs' claim is not produced by fitting anything; it is a structural property of Algorithm 1's per-token MLP operations, and the paper reports a direct logit-equivalence test in Section 4.5. The mini-sequence mechanism is cited from the same group's prior MST work, but MOM implements the mechanism itself and evaluates it against standard, offload-only, mini-sequence-only, and chunked-prefill baselines, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a circular way: the cited result is an external published method, and the present paper's claims do not reduce to that citation alone. The unsupported '35% greater context length extension' and the '>75% throughput reduction' assertions are experimental and comparative gaps: the paper does not report a chunked-prefill-plus-offload baseline or a chunked-prefill maximum context length. That is a correctness or completeness concern, not a circularity. Similarly, the abstract's 'over 50%' average memory reduction is not clearly supported by Table 1's numbers, but that is a reporting inconsistency, not a definitional circularity. No step in the paper renames a fitted parameter as a prediction, defines an input in terms of the output, or imports a uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work. The informal proportionality in Equation (5) is dimensionally loose, but it is not used to generate a predicted number; maximum context lengths are measured experimentally in Section 4.2. Overall, the claimed derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows a standard memory accounting with one genuine error (the KV formula ignores GQA) and several unstated conditions. No invented entities are introduced; MOM only reschedules existing computations.

free parameters (2)

Mini-sequence size C = not reported
Algorithm 1 treats C as an input (M = ceil(S/C)); the values used in Tables 1-4 and Figures 5-6 are never given, yet the memory savings and TTFT depend directly on C.
Offloading overhead Ooffload = unspecified
Equation (4) subtracts an overhead Ooffload from available memory; no value or measurement is provided, so the memory model cannot be checked quantitatively.

assumptions (5)

standard math FlashAttention reduces attention intermediate memory to O(S*d)
Section 3.3 relies on this to make MLP memory the dominant term in Eq. (1); it is cited (Dao et al., 2022) rather than verified in this test setup.
domain assumption The partitioned MLP path contains only token-wise operations, so chunking is exact
Section 3.1 and Algorithm 1; underpins the identical-logits claim and is never stated as a condition on the model architecture.
standard math KV cache size is 2*S*d*L
Equation (2); incorrect for GQA models like Llama-3 (8 KV heads vs 32 query heads), overstating KV memory by about 4x and contradicting the measured 72 GB total at 155k tokens.
domain assumption CPU memory is large enough to hold the offloaded KV cache
Section 3.2; 455k tokens requires roughly 58 GB of key/value tensors on CPU, which the paper does not discuss.
ad hoc to paper Intermediate buffers are freed between mini-sequences
Section 3.3 states this as an assumption ('Assuming intermediate buffers are freed...'); if buffers persist, the savings do not materialize.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MOM: Memory-Efficient Offloaded Mini-Sequence Inference for Long Context Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGVG3EXB

@misc{pith2026250412526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MOM: Memory-Efficient Offloaded Mini-Sequence Inference for Long Context Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGVG3EXB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12526}
}

read the original abstract

Long-context language models exhibit impressive performance but remain challenging to deploy due to high GPU memory demands during inference. We propose Memory-efficient Offloaded Mini-sequence Inference (MOM), a method that partitions critical layers into smaller "mini-sequences" and integrates seamlessly with KV cache offloading. Experiments on various Llama, Qwen, and Mistral models demonstrate that MOM reduces peak memory usage by over 50\% on average. On Meta-Llama-3.2-8B, MOM extends the maximum context length from 155k to 455k tokens on a single A100 80GB GPU, while keeping outputs identical and not compromising accuracy. MOM also maintains highly competitive throughput due to minimal computational overhead and efficient last-layer processing. Compared to traditional chunked prefill methods, MOM achieves a 35\% greater context length extension. More importantly, our method drastically reduces prefill memory consumption, eliminating it as the longstanding dominant memory bottleneck during inference. This breakthrough fundamentally changes research priorities, redirecting future efforts from prefill-stage optimizations to improving decode-stage residual KV cache efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12526 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Memory vs. Throughput (Average of Various Input Sequence Lengths). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** MOM Architecture Overview. Algorithm 1 Memory-efficient Offloaded Mini-Sequence Inference Require: Input sequence X ∈ RB×S×d , Mini-sequence size C, offloaded KV cache K, feedforward layer MLP, batch size B, sequence length S, and hidden dimension d. Compute attention layer output A = Attention(X) Update and offload KV cache to CPU: K ← offload(K, A) if last MLP layer then Extract last token representation: Alast =… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Dynamic KV Cache Transfer Between GPU and CPU in Prefill and Decode Stages. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: VRAM Comparison for Mini-sequence Inference and Offloads. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Maximium Number of Context Tokens Extended from Standard Llama3.2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Needle Test Accuracy Scores for Standard Llama3.2-8B 5 Future Works Optimizing Integration with Other Inference Frameworks Beyond Hugging Face, large language model inference for individuals and small businesses is often performed using frameworks like vLLM (Kwon et al…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: GPU Memory Usage During Inference: starting from the second datapoint, each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Memory Use vs. Throughput, Qwen2.5-7B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: Memory Use vs. Throughput, Qwen2.5-3B The results align with our findings with A100 GPU, reinforcing the effectiveness of MOM across different environments and practical setups. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[3]

Accessed: 2025-03-25

URL https: //mistral.ai/news/mistral-nemo. Accessed: 2025-03-25. Joshua Ainslie, James Lee-Thorp, Michiel De Jong, Yury Zemlyanskiy, Federico Lebr ´on, and Sumit Sanghai. Gqa: Training generalized multi-query transformer models from multi-head checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13245,

arXiv 2025
[4]

Accessed: 2025-03-25

URL https://huggingface.co/collections/ Qwen/qwen25-66e81a666513e518adb90d9e. Accessed: 2025-03-25. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 ,

arXiv 2025
[5]

Peters, and Arman Cohan

Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. Longformer: The long-document trans- former. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2004.05150,

arXiv 2004
[7]

Language models are few-shot learners

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877–1901,

1901
[8]

Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost

Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06174,

arXiv
[11]

Gaussian error linear units (gelus)

Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415,

arXiv
[13]

11 Preprint

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06825. 11 Preprint. Under review. Rakshit Kalra. Memory management for modern llms: Fitting elephants into shoeboxes. Medium,

arXiv
[14]

Nikita Kitaev, Łukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya

https://medium.com/@kalra.rakshit/ memory-management-for-modern-llms-fitting-elephants-into-shoeboxes-d48f4e85bc9e . Nikita Kitaev, Łukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. Reformer: The efficient transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04451,

arXiv 2001

Show all 27 references

[15]

Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention

Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.06180, 2023a. Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyu...

arXiv
[17]

URL https://ai.meta.com/blog/llama-3-2-connect-2024-vision-edge-mobile-devices/ . NVIDIA. Streamlining ai inference performance and deployment with nvidia tensorrt-llm chunked prefill,

2024
[20]

Searching for activation functions

Prajit Ramachandran, Barret Zoph, and Quoc V Le. Searching for activation functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05941,

arXiv
[21]

Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, L´eonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ram´e, Johan Ferret, et al

doi: 10.1145/3394486.3406703. Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, L´eonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ram´e, Johan Ferret, et al. Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv pr...
[22]

Accessed: 2025-03-23

URL https://github.com/sglang-project/sglang. Accessed: 2025-03-23. Noam Shazeer. Fast transformer decoding: One write-head is all you need. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.02150,

2025 arXiv
[24]

Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism

Mostofa Shoeybi, Mostofa Ali Patwary, Rajbhandari Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism. arXiv preprint, arXiv:1909.08053,

1909 arXiv
[25]

Scaling llm test-time compute opti- mally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314,

Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute opti- mally can be more effective than scaling model parameters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314,

arXiv
[26]

Long range arena: A benchmark for efficient transformers

Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Samira Abnar, Yikang Shen, Dara Bahri, Philip Pham, Jinfeng Rao, Hongyu Fei, and Donald Metzler. Long range arena: A benchmark for efficient transformers. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2011.04006,

2011 arXiv
[27]

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2011. 04006. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2...

2011 arXiv
[29]

Large batch optimization for deep learning: Training bert in 76 minutes

Yang You, Jing Li, Sashank Reddi, Jonathan Hseu, Sanjiv Kumar, Srinadh Bhojanapalli, Xiaodan Song, James Demmel, Kurt Keutzer, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Large batch optimization for deep learning: Training bert in 76 minutes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.00962,

1904 arXiv
[30]

memory trade-off and comparing them with other optimization methods

and Mistral NeMo (12B) (AI & NVIDIA, 2024), analyzing their speed vs. memory trade-off and comparing them with other optimization methods. Figure 10: Memory Use vs. Throughput, Qwen2.5-7B Figure 11: Memory Use vs. Throughput, Mistral NeMo The results align with our findings on...

2024
[2016]

Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning

Tri Dao. Flashattention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.08691,

arXiv
[2017]

Linformer: Self- attention with linear complexity

Sinong Wang, Belinda Z Li, Madian Khabsa, Han Fang, and Hao Ma. Linformer: Self- attention with linear complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.04768,

2006 arXiv
[2019]

Under review

12 Preprint. Under review. Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202,

2002 arXiv
[2020]

Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning

Zhenni Bi, Kai Han, Chuanjian Liu, Yehui Tang, and Yunhe Wang. Forest-of-thought: Scaling test-time compute for enhancing llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09078,

arXiv
[2021]

Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.05682. Samyam Rajbhandari, Jeff Rasley, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. Zero: Memory opti- mizations toward training trillion parameter models. In SC20: International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis , ...

arXiv
[2022]

Accessed: 2025-03-25

URL https://github.com/bitsandbytes-foundation/ bitsandbytes. Accessed: 2025-03-25. Aaron Grattafiori, Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Alex Vaughan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models....

2025 arXiv
[2023]

Mistral AI and NVIDIA

URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2308.16369. Mistral AI and NVIDIA. Mistral nemo: A state-of-the-art 12b model,

arXiv
[2025]

Headinfer: Memory-efficient llm inference by head-wise offloading

Cheng Luo, Zefan Cai, Hanshi Sun, Jinqi Xiao, Bo Yuan, Wen Xiao, Junjie Hu, Jiawei Zhao, Beidi Chen, and Anima Anandkumar. Headinfer: Memory-efficient llm inference by head-wise offloading. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12574,

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

Accessed: 2025-03-25

URL https: //mistral.ai/news/mistral-nemo. Accessed: 2025-03-25. Joshua Ainslie, James Lee-Thorp, Michiel De Jong, Yury Zemlyanskiy, Federico Lebr ´on, and Sumit Sanghai. Gqa: Training generalized multi-query transformer models from multi-head checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13245,

arXiv 2025

[2] [4]

Accessed: 2025-03-25

URL https://huggingface.co/collections/ Qwen/qwen25-66e81a666513e518adb90d9e. Accessed: 2025-03-25. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, et al. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 ,

arXiv 2025

[3] [5]

Peters, and Arman Cohan

Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. Longformer: The long-document trans- former. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2004.05150,

arXiv 2004

[4] [7]

Language models are few-shot learners

Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:1877–1901,

1901

[5] [8]

Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost

Tianqi Chen, Bing Xu, Chiyuan Zhang, and Carlos Guestrin. Training deep nets with sublinear memory cost. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.06174,

arXiv

[6] [11]

Gaussian error linear units (gelus)

Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415,

arXiv

[7] [13]

11 Preprint

URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06825. 11 Preprint. Under review. Rakshit Kalra. Memory management for modern llms: Fitting elephants into shoeboxes. Medium,

arXiv

[8] [14]

Nikita Kitaev, Łukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya

https://medium.com/@kalra.rakshit/ memory-management-for-modern-llms-fitting-elephants-into-shoeboxes-d48f4e85bc9e . Nikita Kitaev, Łukasz Kaiser, and Anselm Levskaya. Reformer: The efficient transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.04451,

arXiv 2001