좋아요. 이제 `<details>` 내부의 **Prompt 1.1.1 ~ 1.5.2** (즉, 질의응답 기반 해설 전체) 부분을 영어로 자연스럽게 번역하겠습니다.
원문의 기술적 정밀성과 citation 구조는 유지하면서, 영어 독자가 읽기 좋은 문체로 정리했습니다.

---

````markdown
<details markdown="block">
<summary>▶️<strong>Click to expand detailed Q&A analysis</strong></summary>

---

## Prompt 1.1.1 — Research Gap

**Summary:**  
Previous optimization studies focused only on **intra-LLM prefix sharing**—reusing and managing KV caches *within* a single model (e.g., **vLLM, PagedAttention, LMCache, Hydragen**).  
However, **cross-LLM KV reuse**—sharing KV caches **across models** with the *same architecture but different weights*—remained unsolved.  
DroidSpeak bridges this gap by selectively **recomputing only ~10% of critical contiguous layers** while **reusing KV caches** from another model, and overlaps **transmission and recomputation** to achieve  
**1.7–3.1× TTFT reduction** and **up to 4× throughput increase**, with **minimal F1/ROUGE-L/code similarity loss** (§Abstract/§1/§4–5).

---

### Key Numbers (Summary)

* **Scope:** Cross-LLM KV reuse for models with identical **architecture**, differing **weights** (§1)  
* **Recomputation ratio:** Only **~10% of layers** are critical and need recomputation (§3.2)  
* **Serving:** **TTFT ↓1.7–3.1×**, **Throughput ↑ up to 4×**, **Avg. prefill speed ↑2.1×** (§5)  
* **Quality:** F1/ROUGE-L/CodeSim preserved (“negligible loss”) (§Abstract, §5.2)  
* **Runtime pipeline:** **≈2× TTFT reduction** from E-first pipelining (§4.3–4.4, Fig.13)  
* **Profiling Cost:** **O(L²)**; Llama-3-8B (32L) ≈ **3 h @ A100**, reducible by **3×** via 2-layer grouping (§4.2)  

> **TPOT = ms/token.** The paper focuses mainly on **prefill latency (TTFT)** and **throughput** (§5).

---

### Research Gap Filled by This Work

1. **From Single-LLM to Multi-LLM Sharing**  
   - Prior optimizations improved prefix sharing **within one model** (vLLM’s *PagedAttention*, LMCache, SGLang, etc.), boosting memory and cache hit rate.  
   - None extended **computation reuse** to *different* models.  
   - The authors explicitly pose: *“Can KV caches from one LLM be reused by another?”* (§1, §Related Work)

2. **No Framework for Accuracy-Preserving “KV Translation”**  
   - Naively reusing KV across models breaks accuracy due to *representation mismatch*.  
   - Layerwise **sensitivity differences** suggest partial recomputation, but no method existed to identify layers or integrate it systemically (§1–3).

3. **Lack of Transmission–Compute Overlap in Distributed Serving**  
   - Prior works focused on single-model cache compression/offloading but ignored overlapping **remote KV/E transfer** with **partial prefill recomputation** (§4.3–4.4).

---

### SOTA Summary at Publication Time

| Axis | Method | Key Idea | Limitation (from this paper’s view) |
|------|---------|-----------|------------------------------------|
| **KV Management** | vLLM / PagedAttention, LMCache | Paginated KV management to reduce memory | Does not address compute cost; single-LLM only (§1, §RW) |
| **Prefix Sharing Acceleration** | Hydragen | Prefix/suffix attention factorization and inter-sequence batching | Limited to single-model attention ops (§Hydragen Intro, §RW) |
| **KV Quality Correction** | CacheBlend | Token-wise selective recomputation | Assumes same model, token-level only (§1, §4) |

> In short: abundant **memory/cache optimization**, but no **cross-LLM KV reuse**.  
> DroidSpeak fills this gap with **contiguous-layer recomputation + pipelining** (§Abstract/§1/§4).

---

### Quantitative Contributions

1. **Empirical Insight:** In **8 model pairs**, only ~**10% of layers** are critical and consistent across inputs → reusable via **offline profiling** (§3.2, §4.2)  
2. **Algorithm:** **Recompute contiguous layer blocks** to minimize transition errors → Pareto trade-off between accuracy and latency (§4.1–4.2, Fig.10–11)  
3. **System:** Overlap **remote KV/E transfer** and recomputation via CUDA streams → **≈2× TTFT reduction** (§4.3–4.4, Fig.13)  
4. **Effect:** **TTFT ↓1.7–3.1×**, **Throughput ↑ up to 4×**, **CacheBlend +5–33 pp quality @ same latency** (avg +16 pp) (§5.2–5.3)

---

### Why Contiguous Recompute?

Non-contiguous (“spot”) recomputation introduces multiple *transition boundaries*, each amplifying mismatch errors in E-cache → large quality loss.  
Contiguous recomputation minimizes transitions, reducing cumulative error and stabilizing quality (§4.1, Fig.10–11).  
Profiling produces a **recompute layers ↔ F1 trade-off frontier**, allowing SLO-based selection (§4.2, Fig.11–12).

---

### Relation to Prior Work

* **KV management/offloading/compression:** single-model only (vLLM, LMCache) — not directly related to cross-LLM reuse (§Related Work).  
* **Prefix attention acceleration (Hydragen):** single-model optimization (§Hydragen, §RW).  
* **CacheBlend:** token-level correction within same model vs. DroidSpeak’s layer-group recomputation (§1, §4).

---

### Explicit and Potential Limitations

* **Profiling Overhead:** O(L²), e.g. 32 layers ≈ 3h@A100 (one-time, reducible by grouping) (§4.2).  
* **Data Drift Sensitivity:** profiling mismatch may degrade quality → periodic re-profiling suggested (§6).  
* **Bandwidth Sensitivity:** performance gains shrink as network bandwidth increases (§6).  

---

**In essence:**  
DroidSpeak reframes prefix reuse from a **memory-only problem** to a **compute-sharing problem across models**, introducing layer sensitivity analysis and practical distributed pipelining.

---

## Prompt 1.1.2 — Central Hypothesis

The authors hypothesize that **for LLMs sharing the same architecture**, the *receiver model* can safely **reuse prefix KV caches** from a *sender model* by combining **contiguous-layer selective recomputation** and **E-first pipelined KV loading (DroidSpeak)**.  
This overcomes two limitations—(1) **single-model-only caching** and (2) **accuracy collapse under cross-model KV reuse**—achieving **1.7–3.1× TTFT reduction** and **up to 4× throughput increase** with **negligible loss in F1/ROUGE-L/CodeSim** (§Abstract, §1).

---

## Prompt 1.2.1 — Novel Contributions

**Summary:**  
DroidSpeak’s originality lies in (1) identifying **layer-wise sensitivity in cross-LLM KV reuse (~10% critical layers)**, (2) designing a **system architecture** that couples contiguous-layer recomputation with E/KV pipelining, and (3) demonstrating **substantial serving gains (TTFT ↓1.7–3.1×, throughput ↑ up to 4×)** with quality retention (§3.2, §4, §5.2, Fig.9–15).

---

### 1) Layer Sensitivity Discovery (Analytical Insight)

* **Type:** Theoretical & empirical insight.  
* **Finding:** Across 8 model pairs and 6 datasets, reusing all layers causes >50 pp accuracy loss (e.g., on HotpotQA), but only ~10% of layers are critical and stable across inputs (“critical layers”) (§3.1–3.2, Fig.7).  
* **Significance:** Defines a new optimization axis between *full reuse (poor quality)* and *full recomputation (high latency)* (§3).

---

### 2) Contiguous-Layer Recompute + Pipelining (System Innovation)

* **Type:** New system/runtime architecture with algorithmic design.  
* **Key Ideas:**  
  - Recomputing scattered layers increases transition mismatches; grouping **contiguous layers** minimizes error (§4.1–4.2, Fig.10–11).  
  - **E-first pipelining:** start recomputation upon receiving transition-layer E-cache while loading other KVs in parallel → TTFT reduced from 47→17 (≈2×) (§4.3, Fig.13).  
  - **Offline profiling:** O(L²) search; 32-layer Llama-3-8B ≈ 3h@A100, reducible 3× with 2-layer grouping (§4.2).  
  - **Implementation:** ~3K LoC, PyTorch 2.0/CUDA 12.0, integrated into vLLM/LMCache with new APIs (`store`, `fetch`, `partial_prefill`) (§4.4).

---

### 3) Real Serving Results (Empirical Validation)

* **Type:** Application of existing methods to a new cross-LLM scenario.  
* **Metrics:**  
  - TTFT ↓1.7–3.1× (avg 2.1×), throughput ↑ up to 4× (8 model pairs, 3 datasets) (§5.2–5.3).  
  - Quality preserved within negligible F1/ROUGE-L/code similarity loss (§Abstract, §5.2).  
  - Outperforms CacheBlend by +5–33 pp (avg +16 pp) at equal latency (§5.2).  

> Note: E-cache may be 2–4× larger than KV, especially in GQA models (§4.1).

---

**In short:**  
DroidSpeak establishes the first systematic **cross-LLM KV reuse framework** with  
layer-sensitivity insight → contiguous recomputation + pipelining → measurable serving gains.

---

## Prompt 1.2.2 — Claimed Strengths (Author’s View)

The authors claim superiority by demonstrating that their **cross-LLM selective recomputation + pipelined KV loading** achieves **1.7–3.1× TTFT reduction** and **up to 4× throughput increase** with **negligible quality loss**, outperforming all **single-LLM-only caching** methods (§1, §5, Fig.13).

---

### Strength 1 — Empirical Basis for Selective Recomputation

* **Layer Sensitivity Evidence:** Only ~11% of layers are critical; recomputing just these preserves accuracy (§3.2, Fig.7).  
* **Consistency Across Inputs:** Critical layer patterns remain stable, enabling one-time **offline profiling** of O(L²) cost (§3.2, §4.2).

### Strength 2 — Contiguous Layer Grouping to Reduce Error Propagation

* **Why “Contiguous”:** Noncontiguous recomputation increases transition mismatches, amplifying errors (§4.1, Fig.10–11).  
* **Benefit:** Pareto frontier between recompute count and F1 loss allows precise SLO tuning (§4.2, Fig.11).

### Strength 3 — Transmission–Compute Pipelining for Distributed Efficiency

* **Problem:** Remote KV/E transfer latency grows with node distance (§4.3).  
* **Solution:** Transmit E-cache first, overlap recomputation and KV loading → TTFT 30→17 (≈2× improvement) (§4.3, Fig.13).  
* **Integration:** Unified API within vLLM/LMCache, lightweight (~3K LoC) (§4.4).

---

### Comparison Summary

| Axis | Prior Methods | Limitation | DroidSpeak’s Advantage |
|------|----------------|-------------|------------------------|
| Cache Scope | Intra-LLM only | Cross-LLM reuse breaks quality | Enables reuse across models via partial recomputation (§1) |
| Recomputation Unit | Token/scattered layers (CacheBlend) | Multiple transitions → error | Contiguous layer groups minimize propagation (§4.1, Fig.10–11) |
| Distributed Transfer | Sequential KV loading | Idle latency | Pipelined E-first loading hides latency (~2× TTFT↓, §4.3) |
| End-to-End Metrics | — | — | Prefill ↓1.7–3.1×, throughput ↑4×, negligible quality loss (§5, Fig.1) |

> In summary: the **simple, consistent principle—“recompute contiguous layers + pipeline transfers”**—achieves joint improvements in latency, throughput, and quality (§3–§5).

---

## Prompt 1.3.1 — Step-by-Step Algorithm Explanation

**Summary:**  
DroidSpeak enables **partial prefill reuse** between LLM pairs (sender S, receiver R) sharing architecture but differing weights.  
It (1) profiles **which contiguous layer groups** to recompute (O(L²)), (2) pipelines **E-cache-first transfer and recomputation**, and (3) achieves **1.7–3.1× TTFT ↓** and **4× throughput ↑** (§4.2, Fig.11; §4.3, Fig.13; §5.2–5.3).

---

### 0) Background & Terms

* **KV cache:** Per-layer key/value tensors; **E-cache** is per-layer embedding input (§2, Fig.2).  
* **Prefill vs Decode:** Prefill processes the entire input at once (heavy), while decode generates token-by-token (§2, Fig.3).  
* **Motivation:** Repeated prefixes across models waste computation; cross-LLM KV reuse was unsolved (§Abstract, §1).

---

### 1) Offline Stage — Finding Contiguous Recompute Groups

* **Input:** Model pair (S,R) and profiling dataset (HotpotQA, 50 contexts) (§4.2, §5).  
* **Procedure:**
  1. Generate all contiguous layer-group candidates (can group by 2 for efficiency).  
  2. Measure quality (F1/ROUGE-L/code similarity) vs recompute layers.  
  3. Extract Pareto-optimal points with ≤5 pp quality loss (§4.2, Fig.11).  
  4. Complexity: O(L²); 32-layer model ≈ 3h@A100, reducible 3× with 2-layer grouping (§4.2).  
* **Rationale:** Each transition adds mismatch; recomputing contiguous blocks (e.g., 16–27) minimizes cumulative error (§4.1, Fig.10).

---

### 2) Online Stage — Partial Prefill & Smart Loading

* **Inputs:** Chosen recompute group (e.g., L4–L10), SLO-based Pareto selection (§4.3).  
* **Core Operations:**
  - Transmit **E-cache** of transition layers first (2–4× larger than KV).  
  - Overlap recomputation and KV loading using separate CUDA streams (§4.3, Fig.13).  
  - Achieves TTFT ↓ from 30→17 (~2×).  
* **Runtime API:**  
  `store(context, LLM)`, `fetch(context, LLM, layer)`, `partial_prefill(recompute_config, context)` integrated with vLLM/LMCache via `torch.distributed` (§4.4).

---

### 3) Toy Example — L = 4, seq = 4, d_head = 2, fp16

* **Setup:**  
  - Models S and R share architecture but differ in weights.  
  - Profiling yields recompute block {L3,L4}, reuse {L1,L2} (§4.2, Fig.11).  
  - KV size formula:
    $$
    \text{KV(GB)} \approx \frac{2 L H d_\text{head} \text{seq} \text{batch} \text{bytes/elt}}{10^9}.
    $$

* **Process:**  
  1. **Lookup & Load:** R checks cache from S; if absent, S generates and sends (§4.4).  
  2. **E-cache Transfer:** R receives E[L3], starts recomputation (L3–L4) while loading reuse KVs (L1–L2) concurrently (§4.3).  
  3. **Assemble:** Merge recomputed and reused KV, finish prefill, begin decoding (§2, Fig.3).  
  4. **Output:** Quality ≈ R’s baseline (≤5 pp diff), TTFT ↓1.7–3.1× (§5.2).

---

### 4) Pipeline Timeline (Concept)

```mermaid
sequenceDiagram
  participant S as Sender (S)
  participant R as Receiver (R)

  Note over S,R: Transition at L3 (reuse L1–L2 KV, recompute L3–L4)
  S->>R: send E_cache[L3]  (start recompute)
  activate R
  R->>R: recompute L3–L4 (compute stream)
  par
    S-->>R: send KV[L1–L2] (transfer stream)
  and
    R->>R: continue recompute
  end
  R->>R: assemble {KV[L1–L2], KV[L3–L4]} → decode