https://arxiv.org/api/mwTV+Jy3EpnjA+DArZBhX8EbhJc2026-07-21T20:16:28Z539710515http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23265v1Node-Level Performance and Energy Characterization of Flagship Science Applications on SuperMUC-NG Phase 22026-06-22T12:47:43ZWe present a systematic performance and energy-efficiency characterization of five flagship scientific workloads on SuperMUC-NG phase 2, the 28 PetaFLOPs system at the Leibniz Supercomputing Center (LRZ) equipped with Intel Xeon Platinum 8480+ and Intel Data Center GPU Max 1550 (Ponte Vecchio, PVC) accelerators. The selected codes span molecular dynamics (gromacs, lammps), astrophysics and cosmology (OpenGadget3, AthenaK), and finite-element PDE solvers from the dealii-X Center of Excellence. For each code we measure throughput and energy efficiency expressed as compute-elements per wall-clock second (or per Joule of consumed energy) on a single compute node, comparing CPU-only (SPR) against combined CPU+GPU (SPR+PVC) configurations where available. Energy measurements rely on lightweight code instrumentation with p3em, or the Energy Aware Runtime (EAR) present on the system. Our results show that GPU offload yields $4-12\times$ higher throughput and up to $15\times$ better energy efficiency compared to CPU-only execution, with lammps and AthenaK benefiting most. However, both throughput and energy gains are sensitive to problem granularity: insufficient work per GPU tile erodes the accelerator advantage, as clearly observed in AthenaK at small mesh-block sizes. The power-budget utilization is systematically lower for CPUs than it is for GPUs, indicating that even at peak useful-work rate, most applications running on CPUs leave a significant fraction of the node's thermal envelope unused.2026-06-22T12:47:43ZPresented at ISC 2026 IXPUG WorkshopSalvatore CieloElmira BirangAlexander PöpplSajad AziziPlamen DobrevMargarita EgelhoferIvan PribecGerald Mathiashttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09686v2An 83-Format Numeric Catalog with Bit-Exact Conformance Vectors: A Vendor-Neutral Reference for FP8, BF16, MXFP4, and Microscaling Formats2026-06-22T12:28:45ZNumeric format proliferation in machine learning hardware -- FP8 (E4M3 and E5M2), BF16, MXFP4, microscaling block formats, and dozens of research variants -- has outpaced the availability of vendor-neutral, bit-exact reference material. Engineers porting models across accelerators encounter silent divergences that are difficult to diagnose without a shared ruler.
This paper describes a catalog of 83 numeric formats spanning 13 families, a suite of six bit-exact conformance packs covering GF16, MXFP4 element, BF16, FP8 E4M3, FP8 E5M2, and E8M0 block scale, and an IEEE P3109 v3.2.0 cross-walk that maps each pack to its corresponding standards-track configured format. Each pack is a self-contained JSON document with a SHA-256 fingerprint, a shared row schema, and an anchor vector that encodes 3.0 -- the identity phi^2 + 1/phi^2 = 3 -- as a cross-pack sanity check. Packs are cross-validated against ml_dtypes 0.5.4 (Google/JAX); any divergence is documented explicitly and interpreted as a spec-permitted interpretation gap rather than hidden. The work is framed as registry filling: it does not propose new formats, make model-accuracy claims, or assert superiority over any vendor's implementation. All artifacts are publicly available at https://github.com/gHashTag/t27 under an open license.2026-06-08T16:04:15Z17 pages. Source repository: https://github.com/gHashTag/paper3-methodology tag v4.0-trinity. Paper CC BY 4.0; code MIT. ORCID 0009-0008-4294-6159Dmitrii Vasilevhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22786v1Learning Filters with Certainty2026-06-22T02:50:19ZHash-based data structures such as Bloom filters are widely used in network systems for tasks including caching, anomaly detection, and machine learning pipelines. They typically provide binary indications of whether an element belongs to a set of interest, e.g., the contents of a cache. When uncertainty arises due to hash collisions, a positive indication is returned to avoid false negatives. We argue that the certainty associated with such indications can itself be useful information. This work focuses on Counting Bloom Filters (CBFs), a Bloom-filter variant that maintains counters rather than bits. Besides supporting insertions and deletions, these counters provide additional information that can be used to estimate the certainty of positive membership indications. We show how this certainty signal can be exploited in architectures that combine Bloom Filters with machine learning (ML) models.2026-06-22T02:50:19ZAPNet'26, Singapore -- The 10th Asia-Pacific Workshop on Networking (APNet 2026), co-located with ACM SIGCOMM 2026Yuval BanounDaniel Sadoc MenascheOri Rottenstreich10.1145/3820441.3820478http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22496v1Enabling Cloud-Level Accuracy in Edge AI through IoT Data Preprocessing2026-06-21T13:35:57ZLarge language models (LLMs) offer a natural-language interface for interpreting Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data in smart environments; however, cloud deployment introduces latency, privacy, and connectivity concerns. Local LLMs can reduce these limitations, but compact edge-deployable models often show weaker numerical reasoning when raw sensor readings are provided directly. This paper investigates whether prompt-side preprocessing can improve the accuracy-latency trade-off of local LLMs for environmental monitoring. We propose a structured prompt construction framework that transforms raw air-quality and thermal-comfort measurements into progressively enriched textual representations: raw sensor values, threshold-aware descriptions, and compact environmental summary flags. The approach is evaluated using indoor Raspberry Pi/BME680 datasets from Tampere University and outdoor air-quality datasets from Helsinki, Katowice, and Warsaw. We construct a binary LLM query dataset covering air quality, thermal comfort, and joint environmental conditions, and evaluate five local and five cloud LLMs across three prompt variants and two inference modes, with and without chain-of-thought prompting. Results show that prompt enrichment substantially improves local-model accuracy. In No-CoT mode, local accuracy increases from 50.9% to 81.7% indoors and from 63.7% to 89.3% outdoors from the raw to the most enriched prompt. Local No-CoT inference is the fastest configuration, with mean latency close to 0.22 s, while CoT substantially increases inference time. These findings suggest that lightweight prompt-side preprocessing can narrow the local--cloud performance gap and support low-latency IoT analytics in smart environments.2026-06-21T13:35:57ZAygün VarolKatarzyna KołodziejŁukasz SobczakMichał RomaszewskiPrzemysław GłombNaser Hossein MotlaghMirka LeinoJohanna Virkkihttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22423v1When Is a Columnar Scan Bandwidth-Bound? A Decode-Throughput Law and Its Cross-Hardware Validation2026-06-21T10:20:48ZA columnar scan that decompresses, filters, and aggregates should be limited only by memory bandwidth (the roofline floor T >= BytesRead/beta), yet real kernels are often compute-bound and leave bandwidth idle. We give a predictive answer to when a scan is bandwidth-bound. Across encodings, predicate selectivities, and two very different machines, a decoder's value throughput T_dec (values decoded per second) is essentially independent of bit-width b: it is set by the decode layout/strategy, not by how many bits each value occupies. Hence the achieved bandwidth fraction obeys a one-parameter law, f = min(1, T_dec * b / (8*beta)), with the compute-to-bandwidth ridge at b* = 8*beta/T_dec. Fitting one T_dec per strategy reproduces measured bandwidth fractions with median error 0.027 on x86/AVX2 and 0.003 on a held-out Apple M4/NEON machine, and the ridge b* shifts correctly with each machine's bandwidth. Inserting FastLanes' reported decode throughput into the law reproduces its "decode is free at three bits" headline as the large-T_dec limit, unifying our portable decoder and hand-tuned state of the art in one curve. We add two crossovers, validated on both machines: branch-free predicate evaluation beats branchy in a mid-selectivity band (the sigma(1-sigma) misprediction parabola), and zone-map skipping is clustering-gated rather than selectivity-gated. We release the micro-benchmark, the correctness oracle, and a one-command reproduction. This is a baseline and a model, not a faster kernel: our portable C decoders reach ~2 values/cycle, far below hand-tuned SOTA, and the law holds precisely because it is parameterized by the measured T_dec.2026-06-21T10:20:48ZComments: 6 pages, 4 figures. Code + one-command reproduction: https://github.com/samyama-ai/bandwidth-bound-scanMadhulatha MandarapuSandeep Kunkunuruhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22283v1Apple Neural Engine: Architecture, Programming, and Performance2026-06-21T00:17:34ZThe Apple Neural Engine (ANE) is the fixed-function matrix accelerator that has shipped in Apple systems-on-chip since the A11-class iPhone and iPad chips and the M1-class Mac chips, exposed to applications only through the Core ML model framework. This guide reports a reverse-engineered account of the engine, based on direct measurement on Apple silicon and static analysis of the private runtime, compiler, kernel driver, and firmware. It documents the datapath and the roofline that bound the engine's throughput and energy, the dispatch route that reaches it below Core ML, the compiler and on-disk program format, the weight-compression scheme, and the kernel driver, firmware, and command protocol beneath them. The account covers the A11 through A18 and M1 through M5 families, with per-chip target tables and an operation-by-device matrix; the direct measurements are on the M1 and M5. Claims are labeled as measured, decompile-derived, or predicted, and the methodology and open questions are recorded. The direct route is callable from ordinary user space but remains undocumented, unsupported, and version-fragile; it is intended for measurement, research, and on-device work, not for shipping software, where Core ML remains the supported path.2026-06-21T00:17:34Z302 pages, 12 figures. A reference for the Apple Neural EngineSpencer H. Bryngelsonhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.22013v1Load Testing for Machine Learning Model Serving Systems at Scale2026-06-20T12:34:27ZMachine learning (ML) model serving has become a dominant consumer of GPU infrastructure, yet capacity planning in these systems remains largely ad hoc. Under-provisioning leads to service-level objective (SLO) violations and production incidents, while over-provisioning results in substantial resource waste. This paper presents \sys, an industrial load testing framework for ML serving systems that systematically estimates serving capacity through an adaptive, feedback-driven search strategy. The approach leverages real-time performance signals, incorporating dampening, spike tolerance, and convergence detection to efficiently identify maximum sustainable throughput under SLO constraints. We evaluate \sys through a longitudinal analysis of 14 industrial case studies spanning four ML architecture classes: recommendation, ranking, vision, and NLP. This study demonstrates that systematic load testing leads to substantial improvements in GPU resource efficiency and operational reliability. Prior to adopting \sys, a significant fraction of model launches were under-provisioned, resulting in recurring incidents; these issues were substantially reduced after deployment. Our results show that ML-specific design decisions are critical to accurate capacity estimation: workload calibration using recorded traffic reduces estimation error from approximately 30\% to 2--6\%, while proper warmup handling yields a 22.2\% improvement in accuracy. Further analysis reveals key factors influencing prediction error, including model size and co-location effects. This paper distills six lessons and derive architectural guidelines for ML load testing, offering actionable insights for building reliable and efficient ML serving systems.2026-06-20T12:34:27ZThe paper is accepted at ECSA 2026Amr S. AbdelfattahNakul TirumalaiIndu MohananXiao LiPengchao WangDinakar DhurjatiEric Sunghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.02982v2DriftSched: Adaptive QoS-Aware Scheduling under Runtime Token Drift for Multi-Tenant GPU Inference2026-06-19T15:23:40ZThe rapid growth of large language model (LLM) inference services has increased the demand for efficient multi-tenant GPU scheduling. While modern inference runtimes such as vLLM improve throughput through continuous batching and optimized memory management, accurately estimating the runtime cost of heterogeneous inference requests remains challenging. In practice, admission-time workload estimates may deviate from observed execution behavior, leading to workload misclassification, queue imbalance, increased tail latency, and degraded Quality-of-Service (QoS). This paper presents DriftSched, a QoS-aware scheduling framework for multi-tenant LLM inference serving on NVIDIA L4 GPUs. DriftSched combines workload classification, token-budget estimation, tenant-aware queue management, and an online feedback mechanism to refine workload estimates using runtime observations. The framework evaluates FIFO, Priority, Weighted, Shortest-Job-First (SJF), and Aging Priority scheduling policies under heterogeneous multi-tenant workloads. Experimental results show that adaptive calibration reduces workload estimation error by an average of 38.8% (MAE) and 40.5% (RMSE), improving workload classification stability. Among all evaluated schedulers, SJF achieves the best overall performance, reducing median end-to-end latency by approximately 42% and P99 latency by approximately 16% relative to FIFO under sustained GPU contention. The results further indicate that scheduler selection has a greater impact on latency behavior than runtime calibration alone, while accurate workload characterization largely eliminates systematic estimation drift. This work contributes a reproducible framework for studying workload-estimation fidelity and QoS-aware scheduling in multi-tenant GPU inference systems.2026-06-02T00:39:31Z19 pages, 34 figures, 11 tablesKathiravan Palaniappanhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13631v2Beyond Virtual Delay: Improving Packet Delay Bound in Network Calculus2026-06-19T09:49:25ZIn network calculus, a fundamental result is the classical delay bound given by the horizontal deviation between the arrival and service curves. While widely used, the classical bound is derived from the notion of virtual delay. For a FIFO system, in this work, we first show that the maximum packet delay is always upper-bounded by the maximum virtual delay, revealing inherent conservatism when applying the virtual-delay-based bound to packet delay. Motivated by this insight, we revisit packet delay analysis and derive a new packet delay bound that requires no assumptions beyond the arrival and service curves. Specializing the new bound to a system with leaky-bucket arrival curve and rate-latency service curve shows strict improvement over the classical bound, which is further demonstrated through a case study in time-sensitive networking (TSN).2026-06-11T17:42:19ZYuming Jianghttp://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16164v2AI Application Benchmarking: Power-Aware Performance Analysis for Vision and Language Models2026-06-19T08:59:41ZArtificial Intelligence (AI) workloads drive a rapid expansion of high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructures and increase their power and energy demands towards a critical level. AI benchmarks representing state-of-the-art workloads and their understanding in the context of performance-energy trade-offs are critical to deploy efficient infrastructures and can guide energy efficiency measures, such as power limiting. We introduce a benchmarking framework with popular deep learning applications from computer vision (image classification and generation) and large language models (continued pre-training and inference) implementing modern methods. Our performance analysis focuses on throughput rather than ``time to completion'', which is the standard metric in HPC. We analyse performance and energy efficiency under various power-limit settings on NVIDIA H100, NVIDIA H200, and AMD MI300X GPUs. Our results reveal that no universal optimal power limit exists, as the efficiency peak varies across application types and GPU architectures. Interestingly, the two NVIDIA GPUs which mainly differ in their high-bandwidth memory (HBM) configuration show qualitatively different performance-energy trade-offs. Code is available on Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/records/20083679) and GitHub (https://github.com/RRZE-HPC/hpc-ai-perf-bench).2026-03-17T06:32:41ZMartin MayrSebastian WindLukas SchröderMohammadmoein MoradiGeorg HagerHarald KöstlerGerhard Welleinhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20474v2UltraQuant: 4-bit KV Caching for Context-Heavy Agents2026-06-19T08:02:54ZContext-heavy agents place unusual pressure on the key-value (KV) cache: long prefixes are reused across many short turns, while concurrency determines whether the serving system can keep GPUs utilized. We study 4-bit KV-cache compression for this setting, using TurboQuant-style rotation and codebook quantization as a quality anchor and vLLM FP8 KV caching as the deployment anchor. We report three contributions. First, we frame 4-bit KV caching around multi-round agent workloads where task quality, cache residency, and serving throughput must be measured jointly. Second, we describe the practical design choices needed to make the 4-bit path robust, including asymmetric K/V treatment, Walsh-Hadamard rotation, QJL removal, and block-scale variants. Third, we present serving optimizations on AMD GPUs, including optimized decode-attention kernels and UltraQuant, an FP4 approximation path that uses FP8 queries, FP4 KV tensors, UE8M0 group scales, and native scaled-MFMA support on CDNA4. On a long-context, multi-turn agentic workload, UltraQuant cuts P50 time-to-first-token by 3.47x in the cache-pressured late rounds (2.3x across all rounds) and raises output throughput by 1.63x over the FP8 KV baseline.2026-06-18T16:54:07Z11 pages, 9 figuresInesh ChakrabartiDavid LimpusAditi Ghai RanaBowen BaoSpandan TiwariThiago CrepaldiAshish Sirasaohttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05466v2Look Before You Leap: Checking In on Type Tag Checking2026-06-18T18:27:00ZTagging of generic dynamic values is important in symbolic-computation and dynamic-language systems, but the trade-offs change as machine architectures and workloads evolve. In particular, old folklore about boxed values, immediate values, and type tags must be recalibrated from time to time. We revisit the performance of badged object headers, low-bit tagging, and two NaN-boxing layouts on a range of platforms in use today, including AArch64 and x86-64 architectures from different manufacturers. The experiments isolate two distinct effects: the cost avoided by not heap-allocating common scalar values, and the cost avoided by obtaining tag information from the value word rather than by performing a heap read. The results show that several local bit operations are often cheaper than opening a heap object to obtain a tag or small value. Low-bit tagging remains the simplest and usually fastest choice for mostly symbolic workloads, while NaN-boxing is close in access cost and avoids the time and space of heap allocation for ordinary floating-point values.2026-06-03T21:44:02ZStephen M. Watthttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20195v1Randomized Sketching is Robust to Low-Precision Rounding on GPUs2026-06-18T13:10:15ZRandomized sketching is a core primitive in randomized numerical linear algebra. On modern hardware architectures, in particular on GPUs, the performance of sparse sketches is limited by memory traffic and atomic accumulation rather than floating-point throughput. This makes sketching a natural target for mixed precision, provided that low-precision accumulation does not degrade the embedding quality.
We study mixed-precision GPU implementations of sparse oblivious subspace embeddings, focusing on a SparseStack generalization of the GPU CountSketch kernel of Higgins et al. SparseStack improves embedding quality relative to CountSketch on coherent inputs, but its additional nonzeros per column increase atomic-update contention and reduce throughput. We therefore implement FP16 SparseStack variants using deterministic round-to-nearest, exact stochastic rounding, and dithered rounding, and compare them with FP32 SparseStack, CountSketch, mixed-precision CountSketch, and FlashSketch.
Our main empirical finding is that, for the tested regimes, SparseStack embedding quality is insensitive to the FP16 rounding rule. Deterministic, stochastic, and dithered rounding FP16 SparseStack produce nearly identical subspace distortion and sketch-and-solve least-squares accuracy across incoherent, coherent, and adversarial test problems. The dominant accuracy factor is the sketch distribution rather than the quantization rule: SparseStack variants substantially improve distortion on coherent inputs, while all methods behave similarly on incoherent inputs. Since deterministic rounding has the lowest overhead, it provides the best performance--accuracy tradeoff among the FP16 SparseStack variants.2026-06-18T13:10:15Z14 pages, 3 figuresAryaman JeendgarClément FlintHartwig Anzthttp://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26476v3Regression Language Models for Code2026-06-16T17:36:05ZWe study code-to-metric regression: predicting numeric outcomes of code executions, a challenging task due to the open-ended nature of programming languages. While prior methods have resorted to heavy and domain-specific feature engineering, we show that a single unified Regression Language Model (RLM) using a frozen LLM encoder can simultaneously predict directly from text, (i) the memory footprint of code across multiple high-level languages such as Python and C++, (ii) the latency of Triton GPU kernels, and (iii) the accuracy and speed of trained neural networks represented in ONNX. In particular, a relatively small 300M parameter RLM based on T5Gemma, obtains >0.9 Spearman-rank on competitive programming submissions from APPS, and a single unified model achieves >0.5 average Spearman-rank across 24 different programming languages from CodeNet. Furthermore, the RLM can obtain the highest average Kendall-Tau of 0.46 on five classic NAS design spaces previously dominated by graph neural networks, and simultaneously predict architecture latencies on numerous hardware platforms.2025-09-30T16:25:23ZPublished in International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2026Yash AkhauriXingyou SongArissa WongpanichBryan LewandowskiMohamed S. Abdelfattahhttp://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18187v1Group Commit Self-Clocks: Why Tuning Is Unnecessary Above a Device-Set Load Threshold2026-06-16T17:19:06ZGroup commit amortizes the fixed cost of a durable log flush across many committing transactions; the release rule - a timer, a batch size, or an adaptive policy - is a classic tuning knob. The textbook theory is open-loop: for Poisson arrivals the optimal timer is the EOQ square-root rule, and the wait-or-flush decision is ski-rental 2-competitive. We ask when that tuning is worth its machinery, and show that in closed-loop OLTP it usually is not. Real commit arrivals are closed-loop: a client issues its next transaction only after its last commits, so the arrival rate is induced by the policy's own latency. Modeling this as a closed queueing network, the parameter-free greedy-pipelined policy (flush the instant the device is free) self-clocks to a computable fixed point and is within about 0.1% of the best oracle-tuned timer at every load. The square-root rule prescribes waiting $T^\star=\sqrt{2F_0/λ}$, but $T^\star<F_0$ exactly when $λ>λ^\star=2/F_0$; above this device-set load threshold the timer collapses onto greedy and tuning is vacuous. The clean theory only bites below $λ^\star$ and in the open-loop world, where a parameter-free ski policy still beats a fixed tuned timer under rate shifts. We instantiate $λ^\star$ with measured fsync distributions on two AWS storage classes (EBS gp3 versus instance NVMe, a $25\times$ range), and confirm on PostgreSQL that commit_delay=0 is competitive with any tuned value. The contribution is a characterization that explains deployed practice; we add no new logger.2026-06-16T17:19:06Z5 pages, 4 figures. Code, benchmarks, and full pre-registration: https://github.com/samyama-ai/group-commit-policyMadhulatha MandarapuSandeep Kunkunuru