logoalt Hacker News

scottcha • today at 2:53 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

I was able to pretty easily reproduce parts of this paper at Neuralwatt Cloud's SoA models where we do all our optimizations and pricing by energy.

Accuracy uses the paper's strict "#### N" parser and lenient fallback. acc is strict/lenient percent. len_cap is the number of responses truncated at the generation-length limit, not an energy cap. Each language has 50 responses.

  nw-flash (DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017)
  Language    J/req   xEN   tok/req   J/tok    acc       len_cap
  English      23.4  1.00       174   0.134   100/100        0
  Chinese      16.8  0.72       389   0.043     96/96        0
  Russian      18.8  0.80       352   0.054     96/96        0
  French       25.1  1.07       272   0.092     98/98        0
  S. Pashto    69.2  2.96       752   0.092     92/92        1
  Tigrinya     65.3  2.79      2299   0.028      0/76        8
  Shan         98.5  4.21      2823   0.035     48/54       14
  Tibetan      42.3  1.81      2227   0.019      0/76        9

  nw-small (Qwen3.8-27B-FP8)
  Language    J/req   xEN   tok/req   J/tok    acc       len_cap
  English      62.2  1.00       300   0.207   100/100        0
  Chinese     154.1  2.48       605   0.255     94/94        1
  Russian     147.7  2.37       576   0.257     96/96        1
  French      163.3  2.62       323   0.506     98/98        0
  S. Pashto   777.2 12.49      1510   0.515     84/84        6
  Tigrinya    823.8 13.24      2458   0.335      0/76       10
  Shan       1407.4 22.62      3422   0.411     48/52       20
  Tibetan    1455.5 23.39      3199   0.455      0/56       20

  nw-large (Kimi K3.1 Pro)
  Language    J/req   xEN   tok/req   J/tok    acc       len_cap
  English     169.5  1.00       391   0.434   100/100        0
  Chinese     113.8  0.67       491   0.232     98/98        0
  Russian      78.7  0.46       527   0.150     98/98        0
  French      298.3  1.76       406   0.735     98/98        0
  S. Pashto   119.7  0.71       903   0.133     96/96        0
  Tigrinya   1096.6  6.47      1870   0.586     38/86        2
  Shan        503.6  2.97      2895   0.174     52/52       12
  Tibetan     593.2  3.50      2298   0.258      0/82        4
Across the four low-resource versus four high-resource languages:

  Endpoint   Output tokens   Energy/request   J/output token
  nw-flash          6.83x            3.27x            0.48x
  nw-small          5.87x            8.46x            1.44x
  nw-large          4.39x            3.50x            0.80x

Replies

pama • today at 3:37 PM

Thanks for this table! Do you happen to have the fraction of accepted speculative decoding outputs as well? I know it is asking much, but do you possibly measure differences in different across speculation techniques (dspark vs dflash) and differences in framework/code used (unless you only use in house code for these and cannot run sglang or vllm)? Your table is more interesting than the blog for sure.

➕ show 2 replies
scottcha • today at 3:39 PM

I actually think beyond the large increase in energy noted in the paper the decrease in energy for Russian and Chinese was a bit unexpected. I would have actually expected the Chinese DBCS to use more energy but at least for Chinese there could be a training impact here given these are Chinese models.