AIMode.newsSearch
Live

Dual-Flow Transformers: Decoupling the Primary Prefill Path from Additional Decode Computation

A

arXiv cs.AI

AIMode News Desk · curated summary

1 min readAI

Automated news aggregation. Headlines and summaries are gathered from public feeds; see our editorial standards for sourcing, corrections, and AI-assist disclosure.

arXiv:2608.12385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models serve more requests, cumulative inference cost is becoming increasingly important relative to one-time training cost. The two inference phases stress hardware differently: prompt prefill is parallel and typically compute-bound, whereas autoregressive decode is sequential and often memory-bandwidth-bound. Conventional width or depth scaling increases both costs together because every added layer is evaluated in both phases. We ask whether additional learned computation can instead be allocated to continuation prediction while preserving the prompt-wide primary computation and a single persistent key-value (KV) cache. We introduce the Dual-Flow Transformer. Its primary flow is a complete causal language model that processes the prompt and writes the KV cache. The auxiliary flow is omitted during prompt processing and activated only from the final prompt position onward, adding continuation-prediction computation without writing persistent state or influencing the primary flow. The two flows share major attention, MLP, and output matrices, while using separate token embeddings and lightweight coupling. Sharing weights and the primary cache also creates opportunities to reuse loaded weights and cached keys and values during grouped execution. Across matched-token comparisons, Dual-Flow achieves lower validation loss across architectures and data configurations. In MoE models, the separation makes primary and auxiliary expert fan-outs independent controls over prompt cost, continuation cost, and predictive quality. We study two regimes: increasing decode computation at fixed prefill expert computation, and reallocating a fixed decode expert budget between the two flows. These experiments expose a prefill-decode-quality trade-off and demonstrate the potential of phase-specific expert allocation.

Key takeaways

  • 01arXiv:2608.12385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models serve more requests, cumulative inference cost is becoming increasingly important relative to one-time training cost.
  • 02The two inference phases stress hardware differently: prompt prefill is parallel and typically compute-bound, whereas autoregressive decode is sequential and often memory-bandwidth-bound.
  • 03Conventional width or depth scaling increases both costs together because every added layer is evaluated in both phases.
Advertisement

About this story

This story was aggregated from arXiv cs.AI. Headlines, summaries, and links are gathered automatically from public RSS feeds for your convenience.

Read the full story →

For agents:JSON recordOpenAPIWebMCPllms.txt

Advertisement

More in AI

AI

Agreement Is Not Alignment: Divergent Moral Grounds in Human and LLM Ethical Judgments

arXiv:2608.12368v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agreement with human judgments is a common proxy for evaluating the alignment of large language models (LLMs). Yet agreement in final labels does not show that human annotators and models rely on the same moral grounds. Two agents may reach the same judgment while appealing to different principles, contextual assumptions, or interpretations of the situation. We test this distinction using a curated 500-item ETHICS-derived benchmark spanning five domains of moral judgment, with new human annotator and LLM annotations of both final labels and supporting rationales. Across frontier and open model families, agreement with human annotator majority labels is often high. However, rationale-level analysis reveals systematic divergence in the moral grounds expressed by human annotators and models. In particular, models redistribute attention across categories such as harm, respect, promise-keeping, justice, desert, and excuse relevance, even when their final labels match the human annotator majority. Our results show that agreement should not be treated as equivalent to alignment. Label-based evaluation can therefore be misleadingly reassuring unless complemented by analysis of the reasons, principles, and moral priorities expressed in model judgments.

arXiv cs.AI ·

AI

Position: The Alignment Community is Unintentionally Building a Censor's Toolkit

arXiv:2608.12346v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This position paper argues that modern AI alignment methods - originally designed to prevent harmful output - are dual-use technologies that may easily be misused by malicious actors for censorship and manipulation. By mapping current alignment techniques to the possibility and actual cases of misuse, we show that the quest for a "perfectly aligned" model inadvertently also provides malicious actors with an ever-improving tool for informational dominance. We need to discuss this dual-use potential now, as its risk is exacerbated by rapid user adoption of AI as information provider, economic power asymmetries, and a political landscape that increasingly shifts towards authoritarianism. We conclude by urging the community to consider the intentional misuse of AI alignment mechanisms and propose mitigation strategies to safeguard against this dual-use potential.

arXiv cs.AI ·