pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.18042 · v2 · pith:SALVU3MSnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 💻 cs.DC

Latency Prediction for LLM Inference on NPU Systems

Juhyun Park , Seungwoo Jeong , Jingyu Lee , Kyungyong Lee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 22:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.DC
keywords latency predictionLLM inferenceNPU systemsbucketing effectsend-to-end profilingperformance modelingconfiguration optimization
0
0 comments X

The pith

LENS predicts NPU inference latency from two end-to-end measurements per bucket.

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

The paper develops a prediction method for how long large language model inference takes when run on neural processing units. Exhaustive testing of every batch size, parallelization choice, and input length combination is too costly, so accurate forecasts let designers optimize without running every option. LENS takes two full measurements for each bucket of similar sequence lengths and combines them to cover any input-output pair. It accounts for non-linear effects from bucketing while needing no details on the chip design or compiler. Tests across vendors, models, and workloads report average errors of 2.15 percent.

Core claim

LENS is a latency estimator that predicts NPU inference latency without information on the microarchitecture or compiler, and captures the non-linear latency induced by bucketing. LENS profiles each bucket with two end-to-end measurements and composes the results to predict latency for arbitrary input-output length combinations, achieving a mean prediction error of 2.15 percent across NPUs from multiple vendors, several LLMs, and diverse workloads.

What carries the argument

The LENS estimator, which profiles each bucket with two end-to-end measurements and composes those results for any input-output length pair.

If this is right

  • Designers can explore large spaces of parallelization strategies, batching techniques, and scheduling policies without exhaustive measurements.
  • The same two-measurement approach applies across NPUs from different vendors and multiple LLMs.
  • Non-linear bucketing effects are captured without separate modeling of each internal optimization.
  • Prediction remains usable for diverse workloads once the per-bucket profiles are collected.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The composition technique could extend to other hidden-hardware accelerators where only end-to-end runs are observable.
  • Embedding LENS inside an auto-tuning loop would cut the number of trial runs needed to select batch and parallel settings.
  • The method might be adapted to forecast energy use or throughput by collecting the same two measurements under power or rate metrics.

Load-bearing premise

Latency for arbitrary input-output length combinations can be accurately composed from only two end-to-end measurements per bucket despite unknown microarchitecture, compiler optimizations, and bucketing effects.

What would settle it

Run a new input-output length combination on one of the tested NPUs, compute the LENS prediction from its two-measurement profiles, and check whether the absolute error exceeds a few percent on average.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.18042 by Jingyu Lee, Juhyun Park, Kyungyong Lee, Seungwoo Jeong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Structure of a systolic array [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A representative architecture of an NPU. dataflow. Data streams sequentially through processing elements (PEs), and the operands (i.e., weights) resident in each PE are reused across multiple computations, mini￾mizing off-chip memory accesses. This hardware-level data reuse pattern effectively alleviates the memory bandwidth bottleneck of the memory-bound decode phase. Second, GPUs execute all operations o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kernel fusion difference between NPUs and GPUs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compilation difference between GPUs and NPUs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Step latency induced by the bucketing effect on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Accuracy evaluation of LENS on four NPUs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison with Baseline sharegpt cnn arxiv writing_prompts Measured Predicted 1 2 4 8 16 Batch Size 0 50 100 150 200 Throughput (tok/s) (a) Mistral 7B 1 2 4 8 16 Batch Size 0 50 100 Throughput (tok/s) (b) Qwen 3 14B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Measured TBT across buckets (Inferentia2, TP=2, Llama-3.2 1B, BS=1). Stars mark the buckets that lie on a compiler-optimized execution path. The same pattern appears on Qwen3 14B (Figure 8b): most datasets peak at BS 16, but ShareGPT peaks at BS 8. Each (LLM, NPU, dataset) combination thus requires its own search for the throughput-maximizing batch size. LENS makes this search practical, predicting these p… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) requires exploring a large configuration space spanning parallelization strategies, batching techniques, and scheduling policies. Exhaustive measurement across this space is impractical, making latency prediction essential for system optimization. While NPUs have emerged as accelerators designed for LLM inference, no prediction methodology has been established for them. Specifically, applying prior work to LLM inference latency prediction on NPUs faces three challenges: undisclosed microarchitecture of commercial NPUs, unpredictable compiler optimizations, and latency non-linearity induced by bucketing. We present LENS, a latency estimator that predicts NPU inference latency without information on the microarchitecture or compiler, and captures the non-linear latency induced by bucketing. LENS profiles each bucket with two end-to-end (E2E) measurements and composes the results to predict latency for arbitrary input-output length combinations. We validate LENS across NPUs from multiple vendors, several LLMs, and diverse workloads, achieving a mean prediction error of 2.15\%. We further compare LENS against two methodologically related baselines, confirming the validity of its approach.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces LENS, a latency prediction method for LLM inference on NPUs. It profiles each bucket using two end-to-end measurements and composes the results to estimate latency for arbitrary input-output length combinations, without requiring microarchitecture or compiler details. The approach is validated across multiple NPUs, LLMs, and workloads, reporting a mean prediction error of 2.15% and outperforming two related baselines.

Significance. If the composition rule is shown to be robust, the result would be significant for practical LLM system optimization on NPUs, as it reduces exhaustive measurement needs while addressing undisclosed hardware and bucketing non-linearities through a purely measurement-driven method that avoids parameter fitting or internal model assumptions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central claim that latency for arbitrary I/O pairs inside a bucket can be obtained by composing two profiled E2E runs rests on an unstated functional form. No derivation or ablation demonstrates that two samples suffice when bucketing may interact with attention tiling, KV-cache allocation, or compiler fusion to produce higher-order non-linearities.
  2. [Validation] Validation section: the reported 2.15% mean error is presented without error bars, the number of held-out test points per bucket, or residual plots versus number of profiling samples, so it is impossible to verify whether the two-measurement composition generalizes or merely interpolates the profiled points.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the composition operator is introduced without an explicit equation or pseudocode, making the exact arithmetic of the two-measurement rule difficult to reproduce.
  2. [Evaluation] Table captions for baseline comparisons do not state whether the same two-measurement budget was enforced on the baselines.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on clarifying the methodological assumptions and strengthening the empirical validation. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and method description: the central claim that latency for arbitrary I/O pairs inside a bucket can be obtained by composing two profiled E2E runs rests on an unstated functional form. No derivation or ablation demonstrates that two samples suffice when bucketing may interact with attention tiling, KV-cache allocation, or compiler fusion to produce higher-order non-linearities.

    Authors: The composition rule in LENS is an empirical measurement-driven procedure that profiles the bucket boundaries with two E2E runs to capture the dominant non-linear step induced by bucketing, then applies a piecewise composition for interior points. Because commercial NPU microarchitectures and compilers are undisclosed, a first-principles derivation is not feasible; instead, the approach relies on the observation that bucketing non-linearities dominate over higher-order effects in practice. Our multi-vendor, multi-model validation (mean error 2.15 %) provides empirical support that two samples suffice for the workloads examined. We will add an explicit description of the composition function together with an ablation on the number of profiling samples per bucket. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Validation] Validation section: the reported 2.15% mean error is presented without error bars, the number of held-out test points per bucket, or residual plots versus number of profiling samples, so it is impossible to verify whether the two-measurement composition generalizes or merely interpolates the profiled points.

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation lacks the statistical detail needed to assess generalization. In the revised manuscript we will report the number of held-out points per bucket, include error bars on all mean-error figures, and add residual plots against both sequence length and number of profiling samples to demonstrate that the two-measurement rule generalizes rather than merely interpolates. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method is measurement-driven

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on profiling each bucket with two E2E measurements followed by an explicit composition step to obtain predictions for arbitrary lengths. No equations are shown that define the target latency in terms of fitted parameters by construction, no self-citations bear the load of the composition rule, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is imported from prior author work. Validation against external workloads and baselines is presented as independent evidence, so the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unproven composability of two measurements per bucket; no free parameters or invented entities are described in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Latency for arbitrary input-output lengths can be composed from two profiled E2E measurements per bucket
    This is the load-bearing premise that allows prediction without microarchitecture knowledge.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5727 in / 1108 out tokens · 28228 ms · 2026-06-26T22:39:24.198337+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ShareGPT_Vicuna_unfiltered,

    “ShareGPT_Vicuna_unfiltered, ” https://huggingface.co/datasets/ anon8231489123/ShareGPT_Vicuna_unfiltered, 2023, filtered and cleaned version of the ShareGPT dataset originally collected by RyokoAI

    2023

  2. [2]

    Vidur: A large-scale simulation framework for llm inference,

    A. Agrawal, N. Kedia, J. Mohan, A. Panwar, N. Kwatra, B. S. Gulavani, R. Ramjee, and A. Tumanov, “Vidur: A large-scale simulation framework for llm inference, ” inProceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, P. Gibbons, G. Pekhimenko, and C. D. Sa, Eds., vol. 6, 2024, pp. 351–366. [Online]. Available: https://proceedings.mlsys.org/paper_files/paper/2024/f...

    2024

  3. [3]

    Taming throughput-latency tradeoff in llm inference with sarathi-serve,

    A. Agrawal, N. Kedia, A. Panwar, J. Mohan, N. Kwatra, B. S. Gulavani, A. Tumanov, and R. Ramjee, “Taming throughput-latency tradeoff in llm inference with sarathi-serve, ” inProceedings of the 18th USENIX Conference on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, ser. OSDI’24. USA: USENIX Association, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    AWS Inferentia2 architecture,

    Amazon Web Services, “AWS Inferentia2 architecture, ” https://awsdocs-neuron.readthedocs-hosted.com/en/latest/general/ arch/neuron-hardware/inferentia2.html, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-15

    2024

  5. [5]

    Expanding our use of Google Cloud TPUs and services,

    Anthropic, “Expanding our use of Google Cloud TPUs and services, ” 2025, accessed: 2026-05-

    2025

  6. [6]

    Available: https://www.anthropic.com/news/ expanding-our-use-of-google-cloud-tpus-and-services

    [Online]. Available: https://www.anthropic.com/news/ expanding-our-use-of-google-cloud-tpus-and-services

  7. [7]

    Powering the next generation of AI development with AWS,

    ——, “Powering the next generation of AI development with AWS, ” 2025, accessed: 2026-05-15. [Online]. Available: https: //www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-amazon-trainium

    2025

  8. [8]

    Llmservingsim 2.0: A unified simulator for heterogeneous and disaggregated llm serving infrastructure,

    J. Cho, H. Choi, G. Heo, and J. Park, “Llmservingsim 2.0: A unified simulator for heterogeneous and disaggregated llm serving infrastructure, ” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602. 23036

    2026

  9. [9]

    A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents,

    A. Cohan, F. Dernoncourt, D. S. Kim, T. Bui, S. Kim, W. Chang, and N. Goharian, “A discourse-aware attention model for abstractive summarization of long documents, ” inProceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), M. Walker, H. Ji, an...

    2018

  10. [10]

    Flashattention: fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness,

    T. Dao, D. Y. Fu, S. Ermon, A. Rudra, and C. Ré, “Flashattention: fast and memory-efficient exact attention with io-awareness, ” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’22. Red Hook, NY, USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2022

    2022

  11. [11]

    Hierarchical neural story generation,

    A. Fan, M. Lewis, and Y. Dauphin, “Hierarchical neural story generation, ” inProceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), I. Gurevych and Y. Miyao, Eds. Melbourne, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics, Jul. 2018, pp. 889–898. [Online]. Available: https://aclanthology.org/P18-1082/

    2018

  12. [12]

    Mind the memory gap: Unveiling gpu bottlenecks in large-batch llm inference,

    P. Garcia, F. Agullo, Y. Zhu, C. Wang, E. Lee, O. Tardieu, J. Torres, and J. Berral, “Mind the memory gap: Unveiling gpu bottlenecks in large-batch llm inference, ” 07 2025, pp. 277–287

    2025

  13. [13]

    Cloud TPU v5e system architecture,

    Google Cloud, “Cloud TPU v5e system architecture, ” https://cloud. google.com/tpu/docs/v5e, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-15

    2024

  14. [14]

    Cloud TPU v6e (trillium) system architecture,

    ——, “Cloud TPU v6e (trillium) system architecture, ” https://cloud. google.com/tpu/docs/v6e, 2024, accessed: 2026-05-15

    2024

  15. [15]

    Trillium TPU is GA,

    ——, “Trillium TPU is GA, ” 2024, accessed: 2026-05-15. [Online]. Available: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/compute/ trillium-tpu-is-ga

    2024

  16. [16]

    Onnxim: A fast, cycle-level multi-core npu simulator,

    H. Ham, W. Yang, Y. Shin, O. Woo, G. Heo, S. Lee, J. Park, and G. Kim, “Onnxim: A fast, cycle-level multi-core npu simulator, ”IEEE Comput. Archit. Lett., vol. 23, no. 2, p. 219–222, Jul. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/LCA.2024.3484648

    work page doi:10.1109/lca.2024.3484648 2024

  17. [17]

    mNPUsim: Evaluating the effect of sharing resources in multi-core NPUs,

    S. Hwang, S. Lee, J. Kim, H. Kim, and J. Huh, “mNPUsim: Evaluating the effect of sharing resources in multi-core NPUs, ” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization (IISWC), 2023, pp. 167–179. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/IISWC59245. 2023.00018

    work page doi:10.1109/iiswc59245 2023

  18. [18]

    Ragged paged attention: A high-performance and flexible llm inference kernel for tpu,

    J. Jiang, Y. Chen, B. A. Hechtman, F. Zhang, and Y. Mu, “Ragged paged attention: A high-performance and flexible llm inference kernel for tpu, ” 2026. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Ten lessons from three generations shaped google’s tpuv4i : Industrial product,

    N. P. Jouppi, D. Hyun Yoon, M. Ashcraft, M. Gottscho, T. B. Jablin, G. Kurian, J. Laudon, S. Li, P. Ma, X. Ma, T. Norrie, N. Patil, S. Prasad, C. Young, Z. Zhou, and D. Patterson, “Ten lessons from three generations shaped google’s tpuv4i : Industrial product, ” in 2021 ACM/IEEE 48th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2021, pp. 1–14

    2021

  20. [20]

    TPU v4: An optically reconfigurable supercomputer for machine learning with hardware support for embeddings,

    N. P. Jouppi, G. Kurian, S. Li, P. Ma, R. Nagarajan, L. Nai, N. Patil, S. Subramanian, A. Swing, B. Towles, C. Young, X. Zhou, Z. Zhou, and D. Patterson, “TPU v4: An optically reconfigurable supercomputer for machine learning with hardware support for embeddings, ” inProceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2...

    work page doi:10.1145/3579371.3589350 2023

  21. [21]

    In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit,

    N. P. Jouppi, C. Young, N. Patil, D. Pattersonet al., “In-datacenter performance analysis of a tensor processing unit, ”SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News, vol. 45, no. 2, p. 1–12, Jun. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3140659.3080246

    work page doi:10.1145/3140659.3080246 2017

  22. [22]

    ISBN 9798400702297

    W. Kwon, Z. Li, S. Zhuang, Y. Sheng, L. Zheng, C. H. Yu, J. Gonzalez, H. Zhang, and I. Stoica, “Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention, ” inProceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, ser. SOSP ’23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 611–626. [Online]. Available...

    work page doi:10.1145/3600006.3613165 2023

  23. [23]

    Forecasting gpu performance for deep learning training and inference,

    S. Lee, A. Phanishayee, and D. Mahajan, “Forecasting gpu performance for deep learning training and inference, ” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1. ACM, Mar. 2025, pp. 493–508. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3669940.3707265

    work page doi:10.1145/3669940.3707265 2025

  24. [24]

    Analyzing machine learning workloads using a detailed gpu simulator,

    J. Lew, D. A. Shah, S. Pati, S. Cattell, M. Zhang, A. Sandhupatla, C. Ng, N. Goli, M. D. Sinclair, T. G. Rogers, and T. M. Aamodt, “Analyzing machine learning workloads using a detailed gpu simulator, ” in2019 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2019, pp. 151–152

    2019

  25. [25]

    Path forward beyond simulators: Fast and accurate gpu execution time prediction for dnn workloads,

    Y. Li, Y. Sun, and A. Jog, “Path forward beyond simulators: Fast and accurate gpu execution time prediction for dnn workloads, ” in Proceedings of the 56th Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser. MICRO ’23. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2023, p. 380–394. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3613...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613424.3614277 2023

  26. [26]

    Maveriq: Fingerprint-guided extrapolation and fragmentation- aware layering for intent-based llm serving,

    D. Liakopoulos, P. Sinha, T. Hu, M. Lee, and N. J. Yadwadkar, “Maveriq: Fingerprint-guided extrapolation and fragmentation- aware layering for intent-based llm serving, ” inProceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, ser. SC ’25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3712285.3759867 2025

  27. [27]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    Llama Team, AI @ Meta, “The llama 3 herd of models, ” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.21783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Abstractive text summarization using sequence- to-sequence RNNs and beyond,

    R. Nallapati, B. Zhou, C. dos Santos, Ç. Gu ˙lçehre, and B. Xiang, “Abstractive text summarization using sequence- to-sequence RNNs and beyond, ” inProceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning, S. Riezler and Y. Goldberg, Eds. Berlin, Germany: Association for Computational Linguistics, Aug. 2016, pp. 280–290. [Onlin...

    2016

  29. [29]

    Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm

    D. Narayanan, M. Shoeybi, J. Casper, P. LeGresley, M. Patwary, V. Korthikanti, D. Vainbrand, P. Kashinkunti, J. Bernauer, B. Catanzaro, A. Phanishayee, and M. Zaharia, “Efficient large-scale language model training on gpu clusters using megatron-lm, ” in Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and An...

    work page doi:10.1145/3458817.3476209 2021

  30. [30]

    Timeloop: A systematic approach to dnn accelerator evaluation,

    A. Parashar, P. Raina, Y. S. Shao, Y.-H. Chen, V. A. Ying, A. Mukkara, R. Venkatesan, B. Khailany, S. W. Keckler, and J. Emer, “Timeloop: A systematic approach to dnn accelerator evaluation, ” in2019 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2019, pp. 304–315

    2019

  31. [31]

    Realizing the amd exascale heterogeneous processor vision,

    P. Patel, E. Choukse, C. Zhang, A. Shah, I. n. Goiri, S. Maleki, and R. Bianchini, “Splitwise: Efficient generative llm inference using phase splitting, ” inProceedings of the 51st Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, ser. ISCA ’24. IEEE Press, 2025, p. 118–132. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCA59077.2024.00019

    work page doi:10.1109/isca59077.2024.00019 2025

  32. [32]

    Forecasting llm inference performance via hardware-agnostic analytical modeling,

    R. Patwari, A. Sirasao, and D. Das, “Forecasting llm inference performance via hardware-agnostic analytical modeling, ” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.00904

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Scale-sim v3: a modular cycle-accurate systolic accelerator simulator for end-to-end system analysis,

    R. Raj, S. Banerjee, N. Chandra, Z. Wan, J. Tong, A. Samajdhar, and T. Krishna, “Scale-sim v3: a modular cycle-accurate systolic accelerator simulator for end-to-end system analysis, ” in2025 IEEE International Symposium on Performance Analysis of Systems and Software (ISPASS), 2025, pp. 186–200

    2025

  34. [34]

    Just-in-time compilation,

    The JAX Authors, “Just-in-time compilation, ” https://docs.jax.dev/en/ latest/jit-compilation.html, accessed: 2026-05-19

    2026

  35. [35]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. u. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need, ” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, Eds., vol. 30. USA: Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. [Online]. Available: https...

    2017

  36. [36]

    2025 , isbn =

    D. Xu, H. Zhang, L. Yang, R. Liu, G. Huang, M. Xu, and X. Liu, “Fast on-device llm inference with npus, ” inProceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 1, ser. ASPLOS ’25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 445–462. [Online]. Available: ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3669940.3707239 2025

  37. [37]

    Pytorchsim: A comprehensive, fast, and accurate npu simulation framework,

    W. Yang, Y. Shin, O. Woo, G. Park, H. Ham, J. Kang, J. Park, and G. Kim, “Pytorchsim: A comprehensive, fast, and accurate npu simulation framework, ” inProceedings of the 58th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture, ser. MICRO ’25. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2025, p. 1363–1380. [Online]. Available: https://doi.o...

    work page doi:10.1145/3725843 2025

  38. [38]

    Shadownpu: System and algorithm co-design for npu-centric on-device llm inference,

    W. Yin, D. Xu, M. Xu, G. Huang, and X. Liu, “Shadownpu: System and algorithm co-design for npu-centric on-device llm inference, ”

  39. [39]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16703

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16703

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    Habitat: A Runtime- Based computational performance predictor for deep neural network training,

    G. X. Yu, Y. Gao, P. Golikov, and G. Pekhimenko, “Habitat: A Runtime- Based computational performance predictor for deep neural network training, ” in2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21). USENIX Association, Jul. 2021, pp. 503–521. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc21/presentation/yu

    2021

  41. [41]

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

    G.-I. Yu, J. S. Jeong, G.-W. Kim, S. Kim, and B.-G. Chun, “Orca: A distributed serving system for Transformer-Based generative models, ” in16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22). Carlsbad, CA: USENIX Association, Jul. 2022, pp. 521–538. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi22/presentation/yu

    2022

  42. [42]

    Neptune: Advanced ML operator fusion for locality and parallelism on GPUs,

    Y. Zhao, E. Johnson, P. Chatarasi, V. S. Adve, and S. Misailovic, “Neptune: Advanced ML operator fusion for locality and parallelism on GPUs, ”Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, vol. 10, no. PLDI, 2026

    2026

  43. [43]

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

    Y. Zhong, S. Liu, J. Chen, J. Hu, Y. Zhu, X. Liu, X. Jin, and H. Zhang, “DistServe: Disaggregating prefill and decoding for goodput-optimized large language model serving, ” in18th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 24). Santa Clara, CA: USENIX Association, Jul. 2024, pp. 193–210. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix....

    2024

  44. [44]

    Daydream: Accurately estimating the efficacy of optimizations for DNN training,

    H. Zhu, A. Phanishayee, and G. Pekhimenko, “Daydream: Accurately estimating the efficacy of optimizations for DNN training, ” in 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 20). USENIX Association, Jul. 2020, pp. 337–352. [Online]. Available: https://www.usenix.org/conference/atc20/presentation/zhu-hongyu 12

    2020