PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Accelerating Retrieval-augmented Language Model Serving with Speculation

Zhihao Zhang, Alan Zhu, Lijie Yang, Yihua Xu, Lanting Li, Phitchaya Mangpo Phothilimthana, Zhihao Jia

infrastructure & systemsRetrieval-augmented Language ModelsModel Inference AccelerationSpeculative Execution
55.40100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.29)
46.40100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
59.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.43)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

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.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)