-
Are More LLM Calls All You Need? Towards Scaling Laws of Compound Inference Systems
Authors:
Lingjiao Chen,
Jared Quincy Davis,
Boris Hanin,
Peter Bailis,
Ion Stoica,
Matei Zaharia,
James Zou
Abstract:
Many recent state-of-the-art results in language tasks were achieved using compound systems that perform multiple Language Model (LM) calls and aggregate their responses. However, there is little understanding of how the number of LM calls - e.g., when asking the LM to answer each question multiple times and taking a majority vote - affects such a compound system's performance. In this paper, we i…
▽ More
Many recent state-of-the-art results in language tasks were achieved using compound systems that perform multiple Language Model (LM) calls and aggregate their responses. However, there is little understanding of how the number of LM calls - e.g., when asking the LM to answer each question multiple times and taking a majority vote - affects such a compound system's performance. In this paper, we initiate the study of scaling properties of compound inference systems. We analyze, theoretically and empirically, how the number of LM calls affects the performance of Vote and Filter-Vote, two of the simplest compound system designs, which aggregate LM responses via majority voting, optionally applying LM filters. We find, surprisingly, that across multiple language tasks, the performance of both Vote and Filter-Vote can first increase but then decrease as a function of the number of LM calls. Our theoretical results suggest that this non-monotonicity is due to the diversity of query difficulties within a task: more LM calls lead to higher performance on "easy" queries, but lower performance on "hard" queries, and non-monotone behavior can emerge when a task contains both types of queries. This insight then allows us to compute, from a small number of samples, the number of LM calls that maximizes system performance, and define an analytical scaling model for both systems. Experiments show that our scaling model can accurately predict the performance of Vote and Filter-Vote systems and thus find the optimal number of LM calls to make.
△ Less
Submitted 4 June, 2024; v1 submitted 4 March, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Composing MPC with LQR and Neural Network for Amortized Efficiency and Stable Control
Authors:
Fangyu Wu,
Guanhua Wang,
Siyuan Zhuang,
Kehan Wang,
Alexander Keimer,
Ion Stoica,
Alexandre Bayen
Abstract:
Model predictive control (MPC) is a powerful control method that handles dynamical systems with constraints. However, solving MPC iteratively in real time, i.e., implicit MPC, remains a computational challenge. To address this, common solutions include explicit MPC and function approximation. Both methods, whenever applicable, may improve the computational efficiency of the implicit MPC by several…
▽ More
Model predictive control (MPC) is a powerful control method that handles dynamical systems with constraints. However, solving MPC iteratively in real time, i.e., implicit MPC, remains a computational challenge. To address this, common solutions include explicit MPC and function approximation. Both methods, whenever applicable, may improve the computational efficiency of the implicit MPC by several orders of magnitude. Nevertheless, explicit MPC often requires expensive pre-computation and does not easily apply to higher-dimensional problems. Meanwhile, function approximation, although scales better with dimension, still requires pre-training on a large dataset and generally cannot guarantee to find an accurate surrogate policy, the failure of which often leads to closed-loop instability. To address these issues, we propose a triple-mode hybrid control scheme, named Memory-Augmented MPC, by combining a linear quadratic regulator, a neural network, and an MPC. From its standard form, we further derive two variants of such hybrid control scheme: one customized for chaotic systems and the other for slow systems. The proposed scheme does not require pre-computation and can improve the amortized running time of the composed MPC with a well-trained neural network. In addition, the scheme maintains closed-loop stability with any neural networks of proper input and output dimensions, alleviating the need for certifying optimality of the neural network in safety-critical applications.
△ Less
Submitted 2 August, 2022; v1 submitted 14 December, 2021;
originally announced December 2021.
-
A View on Deep Reinforcement Learning in System Optimization
Authors:
Ameer Haj-Ali,
Nesreen K. Ahmed,
Ted Willke,
Joseph Gonzalez,
Krste Asanovic,
Ion Stoica
Abstract:
Many real-world systems problems require reasoning about the long term consequences of actions taken to configure and manage the system. These problems with delayed and often sequentially aggregated reward, are often inherently reinforcement learning problems and present the opportunity to leverage the recent substantial advances in deep reinforcement learning. However, in some cases, it is not cl…
▽ More
Many real-world systems problems require reasoning about the long term consequences of actions taken to configure and manage the system. These problems with delayed and often sequentially aggregated reward, are often inherently reinforcement learning problems and present the opportunity to leverage the recent substantial advances in deep reinforcement learning. However, in some cases, it is not clear why deep reinforcement learning is a good fit for the problem. Sometimes, it does not perform better than the state-of-the-art solutions. And in other cases, random search or greedy algorithms could outperform deep reinforcement learning. In this paper, we review, discuss, and evaluate the recent trends of using deep reinforcement learning in system optimization. We propose a set of essential metrics to guide future works in evaluating the efficacy of using deep reinforcement learning in system optimization. Our evaluation includes challenges, the types of problems, their formulation in the deep reinforcement learning setting, embedding, the model used, efficiency, and robustness. We conclude with a discussion on open challenges and potential directions for pushing further the integration of reinforcement learning in system optimization.
△ Less
Submitted 4 September, 2019; v1 submitted 4 August, 2019;
originally announced August 2019.
