Accelerating Retrieval-augmented Language Model Serving with Speculation
Zhihao Zhang, Alan Zhu, Lijie Yang, Yihua Xu, Lanting Li, Phitchaya Mangpo Phothilimthana, Zhihao Jia
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — Systematically accelerating Retrieval-augmented Language Model inference through speculation, caching, prefetching, optimal stride solver, and asynchronous verification
Abstract
Retrieval-augmented language models (RaLM) have demonstrated the potential to solve knowledge-intensive natural language processing (NLP) tasks by combining a non-parametric knowledge base with a parametric language model. Instead of fine-tuning a fully parametric model, RaLM excels at its low-cost adaptation to the latest data and better source attribution mechanisms. Among various RaLM approaches, iterative RaLM delivers a better generation quality due to a more frequent interaction between the retriever and the language model. Despite the benefits, iterative RaLM usually encounters high overheads due to the frequent retrieval step. To this end, we propose RaLMSpec, a speculation-inspired framework that provides generic speed-up over iterative RaLM while preserving the same model outputs through speculative retrieval and batched verification. By further incorporating prefetching, optimal speculation stride scheduler, and asynchronous verification, RaLMSpec can automatically exploit the acceleration potential to the fullest. Extensive evaluations over three language models on four downstream QA datasets demonstrate that RaLMSpec can achieve a speed-up ratio of 1.75-2.39×, 1.04-1.39×, and 1.31-1.77× when the retriever is an exact dense retriever, approximate dense retriever, and sparse retriever respectively compared with the baseline.
Author context
Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 38 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 45% of matchups.
- ▼ lost to Consensus Optimization at Representation: … ×6
- ▼ lost to Coupling Fairness and Pruning in a Single … ×6
- ▼ lost to Faster Maximum Inner Product Search in Hig… ×4
- ▲ beat Learning Successor Representations with Di… ×4
- ▲ beat Accurate and Scalable Estimation of Episte… ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)