Skip to content

Profiling Lightweight Large Language Models

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.20806 · 0 citations · 31 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

These results show that selecting lightweight LLMs by size, FLOPs, latency, or accuracy alone can select the wrong deployment candidate; PTME profiling exposes configurations that preserve useful accuracy at lower physical cost.

Abstract

Lightweight large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being deployed locally on personal computers and are expected to play a growing role in resource-constrained edge and mobile environments. In such settings, energy consumption, execution time, and memory usage directly affect practical usability, yet existing evaluations of LLM efficiency largely rely on proxy descriptors such as parameter count or FLOPs, often decoupled from task precision. This paper introduces a PTME-based experimental framework for the precision-aware profiling of lightweight LLM inference, jointly measuring Precision, execution Time, peak Memory usage, and Energy consumption through direct hardware-level measurements. The methodology is applied to a representative set of lightweight LLMs executed locally under edge-class resource envelopes on a controlled desktop platform, using benchmarks spanning code generation, mathematical reasoning, and multi-task understanding. We find that static proxy descriptors approximate inference cost well but fail to predict precision. Tightening the resource envelope increases cost without affecting precision, amplifying execution time more strongly than energy and penalizing larger models the most. Moreover, no single model dominates across all PTME dimensions, and a Pareto analysis reveals non-dominated configurations that would be hidden by accuracy-only or efficiency-only assessments, providing practical guidance for selecting models under different resource envelopes. These results show that selecting lightweight LLMs by size, FLOPs, latency, or accuracy alone can select the wrong deployment candidate; PTME profiling exposes configurations that preserve useful accuracy at lower physical cost.

View source

Similar papers

Performance Evaluation of LLM Inference Engines

This thesis presents a performance evaluation of three widely used open-source inference engines: vLLM, SGLang, and llama.cpp, and summarizes the experimental findings into selection recommendations for practical deployment scenarios, providing a reference for developers and researchers in choosing an appropriate infer...

Unknown authors · 0 citations
Conference Open access Sep 2026

Mapping the Efficiency Landscape of Small Language Models

This work evaluates 70+ SLMs from 2023–2025 on five task-specific benchmarks and compares them with two popular LLMs, revealing key trade-offs between energy, performance, and model selection and highlighting the need for informed, task-aware model selection rather than size-driven choices.

Fabian Reichwald, Lukas Schiesser, Christiane Plociennik et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

A Measurement Study of LLM Inference Trade-offs Across Edge Continuum Hardware

A controlled measurement study of self-hosted LLM inference across edge and near-edge deployment nodes: an NVIDIA Jetson AGX Orin and a near-edge server with CPU-only and GPU-enabled inference modes, highlighting that compute-side inference metrics alone can lead to suboptimal placement for latency-sensitive interactiv...

Maysam Khatib, Moysis Symeonides, Demetris Trihinas et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

LLM4LLM: Bridging Kernel Benchmarks and Real Deployment via Closed-Loop Agentic Optimization

LLM4LLM is introduced, a deployment-aware closed-loop optimization framework that starts from a target inference script, extracts phase-aware optimization tasks, searches with an experience-guided episodic agent, and accepts patches through in-model validation.

Hui Zeng, Pengfei Yang, Yanxin Chen et al. · 0 citations

Master Computer Science

A split-phase heterogeneous deployment strategy is proposed, and key optimization paths, including operator ecosystem completion and deep operator fusion, are identified.

Unknown authors · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.