Evaluates the runtime performance of an LLM serving engine under bursty, heterogeneous, and long-context workloads. It probes the system's ability to dynamically switch between data and tensor parallelism to optimize latency and throughput while maintaining memory efficiency compared to static and alternative dynamic baselines. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ShareGPT, CodeActInstruct, HumanEval, Synthetic Workloads, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports TTFT.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill flying-serving-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Flying Serving Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-flying-serving-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: flying-serving-eval
description: Evaluates the runtime performance of an LLM serving engine under bursty, heterogeneous, and long-context workloads. It probes the system's ability to dynamically switch between data and tensor parallelism to optimize latency and throughput while maintaining memory efficiency compared to static and alternative dynamic baselines. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ShareGPT, CodeActInstruct, HumanEval, Synthetic Workloads, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports TTFT.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2602.22593
bibtex_key: gao2026flyingserving
confidence: high
---
# flying-serving-eval
> FLYING SERVING: On-the-Fly Parallelism Switching for Large Language Model Serving — Gao et al. (2026) (arXiv:2602.22593, 2026)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the runtime performance of an LLM serving engine under bursty, heterogeneous, and long-context workloads. It probes the system's ability to dynamically switch between data and tensor parallelism to optimize latency and throughput while maintaining memory efficiency compared to static and alternative dynamic baselines.
## Datasets
- **ShareGPT** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **CodeActInstruct** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HumanEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Synthetic Workloads** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `TTFT` **(primary)** — range: other
- Latency from when a request arrives at the serving system to when the first output token is generated, including both queuing and prefill time.
- `TPOT` — range: other
- Per-request average time-between-tokens during decoding, measured over consecutive output tokens after the first (i.e., inter-token interval).
- `Peak generation throughput` — range: other
- Maximum aggregate output token rate (tokens/s) sustained by the system under load.
- `Queue time` — range: other
- Time from request admission to first scheduling, isolating scheduler delay from execution time.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Text prompts sampled from ShareGPT, CodeActInstruct, HumanEval, or synthetically generated with input lengths uniformly spanning [128, 4000] tokens and output lengths [64, 512] tokens, arriving in traces with alternating low (2–5 req/s) and high (10–30 req/s) load rates.
**Output**: Generated token sequences with precise per-token timestamps logged to compute inter-token intervals and generation rates.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(requests):
ttfts = [req.first_token_time - req.arrival_time for req in requests]
tpots = [mean(req.token_timestamps[i] - req.token_timestamps[i-1]) for req in requests]
queue_times = [req.scheduling_time - req.arrival_time for req in requests]
total_tokens = sum(len(req.output) for req in requests)
total_time = max(req.end_time) - min(req.arrival_time)
throughput = total_tokens / total_time
return {'TTFT': mean(ttfts), 'TPOT': mean(tpots), 'Queue Time': mean(queue_times), 'Throughput': throughput}
```
## Common pitfalls
- Confusing TPOT (strict inter-token interval during decoding) with ILT (Inter-Token Latency), which aggregates compute, queueing, and batching effects and varies with scheduler decisions.
- Assuming static baselines are directly comparable without accounting for their fixed parallelism constraints, which rigidly limit maximum context length and force costly cold-start restarts when limits are exceeded.
- Overlooking that synthetic workloads are explicitly used to control arrival-time traces, as public datasets only provide request contents without realistic timing patterns.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We use standard streaming-inference metrics that quantify initial responsiveness and steady-state token generation: (i) Time To First Token (TTFT): latency from when a request arrives at the serving system to when the first output token is generated (including both queuing and prefill). (ii) Time Per Output Token (TPOT): the per-request average time-between-tokens during decoding, measured over consecutive output tokens after the first (i.e., inter-token interval). (iii) Peak generation throughput: maximum aggregate output token rate (tokens/s) sustained by the system under load.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{gao2026flyingserving,
title={FLYING SERVING: On-the-Fly Parallelism Switching for Large Language Model Serving},
author={Gao et al. (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2602.22593}
}
```
- arXiv: 2602.22593
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!