Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So, infinite context length by making it compute bound instead of memory bound. Curious how much longer this takes to run and when it makes sense to use vs RAG.


Hi MacsHeadroom, first author here. Thanks for the great questions about compute/memory trade-offs.

The quick take: To give you an example of processing speed, with a 7B model on an NVIDIA V100, EM-LLM processes (or generates) about 326 tokens/sec with a 51.2K context window (which is quite competitive for these old GPUs).

More broadly, EM-LLM is designed to make ultra-long contexts (memory-prohibitive for standard O(n^2) attention) computationally tractable. The Appendix C of our paper https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BI2int5SAC details how: significantly better attention scaling, efficient O(nm) memory formation, and large KV cache management via CPU/disk offloading. While there's a slight per-chunk overhead compared to the simplest retrieval methods initially, the crucial part is our ability to handle sequences at scales infeasible for full-context models. For instance, we're successfully using 8B models with 10M token contexts on a single GPU without prohibitive delays.

Regarding RAG in particular, EM-LLM often shows significant gains on tasks needing deep understanding of a single, long, coherent context. A key reason is that EM-LLM allows each layer to retrieve and integrate relevant information from different "episodes" of the context independently, offering more nuance than a typical single RAG step, for similar overall resource use.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: