Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Hardware-Efficient Attention for Fast Decoding

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.21487 v1 pith:VOOFIOVD submitted 2025-05-27 cs.LG cs.CL

Hardware-Efficient Attention for Fast Decoding

classification cs.LG cs.CL
keywords attentiondecodingqualitycachelatentmemorymodelwhile
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

LLM decoding is bottlenecked for large batches and long contexts by loading the key-value (KV) cache from high-bandwidth memory, which inflates per-token latency, while the sequential nature of decoding limits parallelism. We analyze the interplay among arithmetic intensity, parallelization, and model quality and question whether current architectures fully exploit modern hardware. This work redesigns attention to perform more computation per byte loaded from memory to maximize hardware efficiency without trading off parallel scalability. We first propose Grouped-Tied Attention (GTA), a simple variant that combines and reuses key and value states, reducing memory transfers without compromising model quality. We then introduce Grouped Latent Attention (GLA), a parallel-friendly latent attention paired with low-level optimizations for fast decoding while maintaining high model quality. Experiments show that GTA matches Grouped-Query Attention (GQA) quality while using roughly half the KV cache and that GLA matches Multi-head Latent Attention (MLA) and is easier to shard. Our optimized GLA kernel is up to 2$\times$ faster than FlashMLA, for example, in a speculative decoding setting when the query length exceeds one. Furthermore, by fetching a smaller KV cache per device, GLA reduces end-to-end latency and increases throughput in online serving benchmarks by up to 2$\times$.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Think Before You Grid-Search: Floor-First Triage for LLM Serving

    cs.PF 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    A five-dimensional resource-vector floor model computes latency bounds and capacity walls for LLM serving, predicting when TP16 or EP16+DP attention layouts dominate based on operating point.

  2. Think Before You Grid-Search: Floor-First Triage for LLM Serving

    cs.PF 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLM serving should triage by five-resource analytical floors and wall ordering, not grid search; on 16×H20, TP16 is capacity-capped at ~70 while EP+DP attention reaches ~644 concurrent 8K requests.