Claude-skill-registry-data ml-inference-optimization
ML inference latency optimization, model compression, distillation, caching strategies, and edge deployment patterns. Use when optimizing inference performance, reducing model size, or deploying ML at the edge.
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry-data "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/data/ml-inference-optimization" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-data-ml-inference-optimization && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
data/ml-inference-optimization/SKILL.mdsource content
ML Inference Optimization
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- Optimizing ML inference latency
- Reducing model size for deployment
- Implementing model compression techniques
- Designing inference caching strategies
- Deploying models at the edge
- Balancing accuracy vs. latency trade-offs
Keywords: inference optimization, latency, model compression, distillation, pruning, quantization, caching, edge ML, TensorRT, ONNX, model serving, batching, hardware acceleration
Inference Optimization Overview
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Inference Optimization Stack │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Model Level │ │ │ │ Distillation │ Pruning │ Quantization │ Architecture Search │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Compiler Level │ │ │ │ Graph optimization │ Operator fusion │ Memory planning │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Runtime Level │ │ │ │ Batching │ Caching │ Async execution │ Multi-threading │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Hardware Level │ │ │ │ GPU │ TPU │ NPU │ CPU SIMD │ Custom accelerators │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Model Compression Techniques
Technique Overview
| Technique | Size Reduction | Speed Improvement | Accuracy Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantization | 2-4x | 2-4x | Low (1-2%) |
| Pruning | 2-10x | 1-3x | Low-Medium |
| Distillation | 3-10x | 3-10x | Medium |
| Low-rank factorization | 2-5x | 1.5-3x | Low-Medium |
| Weight sharing | 10-100x | Variable | Medium-High |
Knowledge Distillation
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Knowledge Distillation │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ ┌──────────────┐ │ │ │ Teacher Model│ (Large, accurate, slow) │ │ │ GPT-4 │ │ │ └──────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ Soft labels (probability distributions) │ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Training Process │ │ │ │ Loss = α × CrossEntropy(student, hard_labels) │ │ │ │ + (1-α) × KL_Div(student, teacher_soft_labels) │ │ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ ▼ │ │ ┌──────────────┐ │ │ │Student Model │ (Small, nearly as accurate, fast) │ │ │ DistilBERT │ │ │ └──────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Distillation Types:
| Type | Description | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| Response distillation | Match teacher outputs | General compression |
| Feature distillation | Match intermediate layers | Better transfer |
| Relation distillation | Match sample relationships | Structured data |
| Self-distillation | Model teaches itself | Regularization |
Pruning Strategies
Unstructured Pruning (Weight-level): Before: [0.1, 0.8, 0.2, 0.9, 0.05, 0.7] After: [0.0, 0.8, 0.0, 0.9, 0.0, 0.7] (50% sparse) • Flexible, high sparsity possible • Needs sparse hardware/libraries Structured Pruning (Channel/Layer-level): Before: ┌───┬───┬───┬───┐ │ C1│ C2│ C3│ C4│ └───┴───┴───┴───┘ After: ┌───┬───┬───┐ │ C1│ C3│ C4│ (Removed C2 entirely) └───┴───┴───┘ • Works with standard hardware • Lower compression ratio
Pruning Decision Criteria:
| Method | Description | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Magnitude-based | Remove smallest weights | Simple, effective |
| Gradient-based | Remove low-gradient weights | Better accuracy |
| Second-order | Use Hessian information | Best but expensive |
| Lottery ticket | Find winning subnetwork | Theoretical insight |
Quantization (Detailed)
Precision Hierarchy: FP32 (32 bits): ████████████████████████████████ FP16 (16 bits): ████████████████ BF16 (16 bits): ████████████████ (different mantissa/exponent) INT8 (8 bits): ████████ INT4 (4 bits): ████ Binary (1 bit): █ Memory and Compute Scale Proportionally
Quantization Approaches:
| Approach | When Applied | Quality | Effort |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dynamic quantization | Runtime | Good | Low |
| Static quantization | Post-training with calibration | Better | Medium |
| QAT | During training | Best | High |
Compiler-Level Optimization
Graph Optimization
Original Graph: Input → Conv → BatchNorm → ReLU → Conv → BatchNorm → ReLU → Output Optimized Graph (Operator Fusion): Input → FusedConvBNReLU → FusedConvBNReLU → Output Benefits: • Fewer kernel launches • Better memory locality • Reduced memory bandwidth
Common Optimizations
| Optimization | Description | Speedup |
|---|---|---|
| Operator fusion | Combine sequential ops | 1.2-2x |
| Constant folding | Pre-compute constants | 1.1-1.5x |
| Dead code elimination | Remove unused ops | Variable |
| Layout optimization | Optimize tensor memory layout | 1.1-1.3x |
| Memory planning | Optimize buffer allocation | 1.1-1.2x |
Optimization Frameworks
| Framework | Vendor | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| TensorRT | NVIDIA | NVIDIA GPUs, lowest latency |
| ONNX Runtime | Microsoft | Cross-platform, broad support |
| OpenVINO | Intel | Intel CPUs/GPUs |
| Core ML | Apple | Apple devices |
| TFLite | Mobile, embedded | |
| Apache TVM | Open source | Custom hardware, research |
Runtime Optimization
Batching Strategies
No Batching: Request 1: [Process] → Response 1 10ms Request 2: [Process] → Response 2 10ms Request 3: [Process] → Response 3 10ms Total: 30ms, GPU underutilized Dynamic Batching: Requests 1-3: [Wait 5ms] → [Process batch] → Responses Total: 15ms, 2x throughput Trade-off: Latency vs. Throughput • Larger batch: Higher throughput, higher latency • Smaller batch: Lower latency, lower throughput
Batching Parameters:
| Parameter | Description | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum batch size | Throughput vs. latency |
| Wait time for batch fill | Latency vs. efficiency |
| Minimum before processing | Latency predictability |
Caching Strategies
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Inference Caching Layers │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Layer 1: Input Cache │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Cache exact inputs → Return cached outputs │ │ │ │ Hit rate: Low (inputs rarely repeat exactly) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ Layer 2: Embedding Cache │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Cache computed embeddings for repeated tokens/entities │ │ │ │ Hit rate: Medium (common tokens repeat) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ Layer 3: KV Cache (for transformers) │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Cache key-value pairs for attention │ │ │ │ Hit rate: High (reuse across tokens in sequence) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ │ Layer 4: Result Cache │ │ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Cache semantic equivalents (fuzzy matching) │ │ │ │ Hit rate: Variable (depends on query distribution) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Semantic Caching for LLMs:
Query: "What's the capital of France?" ↓ Hash + Embed query ↓ Search cache (similarity > threshold) ↓ ├── Hit: Return cached response └── Miss: Generate → Cache → Return
Async and Parallel Execution
Sequential: ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ ┌─────┐ │Prep │→│Model│→│Post │ Total: 30ms │10ms │ │15ms │ │5ms │ └─────┘ └─────┘ └─────┘ Pipelined: Request 1: │Prep│Model│Post│ Request 2: │Prep│Model│Post│ Request 3: │Prep│Model│Post│ Throughput: 3x higher Latency per request: Same
Hardware Acceleration
Hardware Comparison
| Hardware | Strengths | Limitations | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPU (NVIDIA) | High parallelism, mature ecosystem | Power, cost | Training, large batch inference |
| TPU (Google) | Matrix ops, cloud integration | Vendor lock-in | Google Cloud workloads |
| NPU (Apple/Qualcomm) | Power efficient, on-device | Limited models | Mobile, edge |
| CPU | Flexible, available | Slower for ML | Low-batch, CPU-bound |
| FPGA | Customizable, low latency | Development complexity | Specialized workloads |
GPU Optimization
| Optimization | Description | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Tensor Cores | Use FP16/INT8 tensor operations | 2-8x speedup |
| CUDA graphs | Reduce kernel launch overhead | 1.5-2x for small models |
| Multi-stream | Parallel execution | Higher throughput |
| Memory pooling | Reduce allocation overhead | Lower latency variance |
Edge Deployment
Edge Constraints
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Edge Deployment Constraints │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ Resource Constraints: │ │ ├── Memory: 1-4 GB (vs. 64+ GB cloud) │ │ ├── Compute: 1-10 TOPS (vs. 100+ TFLOPS cloud) │ │ ├── Power: 5-15W (vs. 300W+ cloud) │ │ └── Storage: 16-128 GB (vs. TB cloud) │ │ │ │ Operational Constraints: │ │ ├── No network (offline operation) │ │ ├── Variable ambient conditions │ │ ├── Infrequent updates │ │ └── Long deployment lifetime │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Edge Optimization Strategies
| Strategy | Description | Use When |
|---|---|---|
| Model selection | Use edge-native models (MobileNet, EfficientNet) | Accuracy acceptable |
| Aggressive quantization | INT8 or lower | Memory/power constrained |
| On-device distillation | Distill to tiny model | Extreme constraints |
| Split inference | Edge preprocessing, cloud inference | Network available |
| Model caching | Cache results locally | Repeated queries |
Edge ML Frameworks
| Framework | Platform | Features |
|---|---|---|
| TensorFlow Lite | Android, iOS, embedded | Quantization, delegates |
| Core ML | iOS, macOS | Neural Engine optimization |
| ONNX Runtime Mobile | Cross-platform | Broad model support |
| PyTorch Mobile | Android, iOS | Familiar API |
| TensorRT | NVIDIA Jetson | Maximum performance |
Latency Profiling
Profiling Methodology
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Latency Breakdown Analysis │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ 1. Data Loading: ████████░░░░░░░░░░ 15% │ │ 2. Preprocessing: ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░ 10% │ │ 3. Model Inference: ████████████████░░ 60% │ │ 4. Postprocessing: ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 8% │ │ 5. Response Serialization:███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ 7% │ │ │ │ Target: Model inference (60% = biggest optimization opportunity) │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Profiling Tools
| Tool | Use For |
|---|---|
| PyTorch Profiler | PyTorch model profiling |
| TensorBoard | TensorFlow visualization |
| NVIDIA Nsight | GPU profiling |
| Chrome Tracing | General timeline visualization |
| perf | CPU profiling |
Key Metrics
| Metric | Description | Target |
|---|---|---|
| P50 latency | Median latency | < SLA |
| P99 latency | Tail latency | < 2x P50 |
| Throughput | Requests/second | Meet demand |
| GPU utilization | Compute usage | > 80% |
| Memory bandwidth | Memory usage | < limit |
Optimization Workflow
Systematic Approach
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Optimization Workflow │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ │ │ 1. Baseline │ │ └── Measure current performance (latency, throughput, accuracy) │ │ │ │ 2. Profile │ │ └── Identify bottlenecks (model, data, system) │ │ │ │ 3. Optimize (in order of effort/impact): │ │ ├── Hardware: Use right accelerator │ │ ├── Compiler: Enable optimizations (TensorRT, ONNX) │ │ ├── Runtime: Batching, caching, async │ │ ├── Model: Quantization, pruning │ │ └── Architecture: Distillation, model change │ │ │ │ 4. Validate │ │ └── Verify accuracy maintained, latency improved │ │ │ │ 5. Deploy and Monitor │ │ └── Track real-world performance │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Optimization Priority Matrix
High Impact │ Compiler Opts ────┼──── Quantization (easy win) │ (best ROI) │ Low Effort ──────────────┼──────────────── High Effort │ Batching ────┼──── Distillation (quick win) │ (major effort) │ Low Impact
Common Patterns
Multi-Model Serving
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │ │ Request → ┌─────────┐ │ │ │ Router │ │ │ └─────────┘ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┌────────┘ │ └────────┐ │ │ ▼ ▼ ▼ │ │ ┌───────┐ ┌───────┐ ┌───────┐ │ │ │ Tiny │ │ Small │ │ Large │ │ │ │ <10ms │ │ <50ms │ │<500ms │ │ │ └───────┘ └───────┘ └───────┘ │ │ │ │ Routing strategies: │ │ • Complexity-based: Simple→Tiny, Complex→Large │ │ • Confidence-based: Try Tiny, escalate if low confidence │ │ • SLA-based: Route based on latency requirements │ │ │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
Speculative Execution
Query: "Translate: Hello" │ ├──▶ Small model (draft): "Bonjour" (5ms) │ └──▶ Large model (verify): Check "Bonjour" (10ms parallel) │ ├── Accept: Return immediately └── Reject: Generate with large model Speedup: 2-3x when drafts are often accepted
Cascade Models
Input → ┌────────┐ │ Filter │ ← Cheap filter (reject obvious negatives) └────────┘ │ (candidates only) ▼ ┌────────┐ │ Stage 1│ ← Fast model (coarse ranking) └────────┘ │ (top-100) ▼ ┌────────┐ │ Stage 2│ ← Accurate model (fine ranking) └────────┘ │ (top-10) ▼ Output Benefit: 10x cheaper, similar accuracy
Optimization Checklist
Pre-Deployment
- Profile baseline performance
- Identify primary bottleneck (model, data, system)
- Apply compiler optimizations (TensorRT, ONNX)
- Evaluate quantization (INT8 usually safe)
- Tune batch size for target throughput
- Test accuracy after optimization
Deployment
- Configure appropriate hardware
- Enable caching where applicable
- Set up monitoring (latency, throughput, errors)
- Configure auto-scaling policies
- Implement graceful degradation
Post-Deployment
- Monitor p99 latency
- Track accuracy metrics
- Analyze cache hit rates
- Review cost efficiency
- Plan iterative improvements
Related Skills
- LLM-specific serving optimizationllm-serving-patterns
- End-to-end ML pipeline designml-system-design
- Performance as quality attributequality-attributes-taxonomy
- Capacity planning for ML systemsestimation-techniques
Version History
- v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release - ML inference optimization patterns
Last Updated
Date: 2025-12-26