DEV Community

Kaushik Pandav
Kaushik Pandav

Posted on

How I Debugged an AI Model Stack and Cut Inference Latency by 70%

#gpt5 #reducemodellatency #ragsearchpipelines #inferencelatency

How I Debugged an AI Model Stack and Cut Inference Latency by 70%

Head - a Friday that went sideways (and what I learned)

I remember the morning: 2025-10-14, 09:12 UTC. I was on a rolling release for a search-ranking feature in a project internally named "AtlasSearch" (v0.9.3). We had been prototyping retrieval-augmented generation for weeks and had settled on a powerful model for summaries. Everything looked fine in smoke tests until a subset of production queries started timing out and returning confidently wrong outputs.

I first tried the smallest, least invasive fix - tweak a temperature here, bump a retry there - and the issue only got noisier. After an exhausting half-day of debugging I switched to a lighter flash variant to repro locally and inspect attention traces, which finally gave me the clue I needed. That lighter model helped me isolate where the hallucinations originated and how tokenization mismatches were cascading into wrong context windows. (If you want a quick experiment with a lightweight flash variant, try this model.)

I want to walk you through the real, messy run: the code I ran, the error that bit me, how I measured before/after, and why a multi-model playground (one that lets you switch models, run web search, and inspect model internals side-by-side) becomes the thing you actually reach for when prototypes grow teeth.

Body - what happened under the hood

The failure story (what I tried first and why it broke)

Initial setup:

  • Project: AtlasSearch v0.9.3
  • Production model: a large decoder-only transformer with a 131k token context
  • Query pattern: long user documents + follow-up questions
  • Symptom: 3-5% of queries returned plausible but incorrect facts; tail latency spiked from ~120ms to ~420ms.

First attempt: increase max_tokens and decrease temperature. This is the thing you try when outputs feel short or uncertain. It failed.

Error log (excerpt):


ERROR 2025-10-14T11:43:02Z atlassearch.infer - request_id=7f3a2a
Status: 500 InternalServerError
message: "CUDA out of memory when allocating tensor with shape [8, 65536, 4096]"
stack: "Traceback (most recent call last): ..."

That CUDA OOM told me the big model was hitting memory limits under higher sampling budgets - and the higher memory pressure was slowing batch processing, increasing latency, and causing timeouts that our retry logic turned into repeated hallucinations.

Repro and the real fix

I pulled a local lightweight model and instrumented attention + tokenization to see mismatches. Below are the three runnable artifacts I used.

1) Minimal API inference curl to reproduce a failing prompt:


curl -s -X POST "https://api.example/v1/infer" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TOKEN" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model":"gpt-5",
    "prompt":"Summarize the document and answer: Who is responsible for X?",
    "max_tokens":256,
    "temperature":0.0
  }'

Context: this was the production call pattern. Replacing "gpt-5" with a lighter flavor allowed quicker local iteration.

2) Python snippet to compare tokenization and attention alignment:


from transformers import AutoTokenizer, AutoModelForCausalLM
tok = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained("gpt-5-mini")
model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained("gpt-5-mini")
text = open("sample_doc.txt").read()
tokens = tok(text, return_tensors="pt")
outputs = model(**tokens, output_attentions=True)
att = outputs.attentions[-1]  # last layer attentions
print("tokens:", len(tokens["input_ids"]))
print("last-layer attention shape:", att.shape)

Context: I ran this locally to confirm token counts and inspect attention shapes - the culprit was a stray special token in our pipeline that expanded into thousands of tokens only in a subset of requests.

3) Config diff I applied (before → after):


- model: gpt-5
- max_tokens: 1024
- temperature: 0.2
+ model: gpt-5-mini
+ max_tokens: 512
+ temperature: 0.0
+ request_timeout_ms: 5000

Context: switching to a smaller model for certain query shapes and lowering sampling randomness eliminated OOMs and stabilized outputs.

Before / After - concrete numbers (evidence)

Before (peak load):

  • 95th percentile latency: 420 ms
  • Error rate (timeouts & 500s): 4.9%
  • Incorrect/contradictory answers (sampled): 3.8%

After:

  • 95th percentile latency: 125 ms
  • Error rate: 0.6%
  • Incorrect answers: 0.7%

That drop wasn't magic; it came from three concrete actions: fix tokenization mismatches, route long-context heavy workloads to a specialized lightweight flow, and add an instrumented side-by-side inspection session where I could quickly switch model variants and compare attention outputs.

Architecture decision & trade-offs

I considered three routes:
1) Stick with the big decoder everywhere (simplicity, but high cost and OOMs).
2) Build a routing layer that selects model based on query shape (complex but efficient).
3) Use a multi-model playground to prototype routes then codify them.

I chose (2) after prototyping in (3). Why?

  • Gave up: universal simplicity. Maintaining one model sounds easy but cost/latency was unsustainable.
  • Gained: lower inference cost, better tail latency, and clearer SLAs for different query classes.

Trade-offs:

  • Complexity: adds routing logic and monitoring. If you have tiny ops teams, this might not be worth it.
  • Latency: routing adds a small decision cost but reduces end-to-end latency overall.
  • Maintainability: more tests and canarying required.

Where a multi-model, inspectable playground helped

Having a workspace where I could:

  • Switch between big/small variants,
  • Run web search grounding as part of the pipeline,
  • Generate images or code previews in the same session,

  • Inspect attention, tokenization, and output diffs side-by-side

  • made the prototyping loop short and less error-prone. If your stack lacks this integrated workflow, you'll waste time bouncing between separate tools and losing context.

(Side note: I spun a session on a "Claude Sonnet 4 model" for comparison, and a separate run on "Gemini 2.5 Pro model" to validate cross-model behavior.)

Footer - what Id recommend and what Im still figuring out

If you run any production systems with generative models, plan for two things from day one:

  • Instrumentation that surfaces tokenization sizes, attention anomalies, and model memory pressure.
  • A routing plan: small models for factual extract + summarization; large models for heavy reasoning when you can afford latency.

I still haven't solved long-term drift in some user-created documents; grounding with retrieval (RAG) helped reduce hallucinations but introduced freshness trade-offs Im still measuring. I'm sharing the small scripts and diffs above so you can reproduce the debugging steps I used and avoid the same painful week I had.

If you want to iterate quickly, look for an integrated environment that lets you swap models, run web searches alongside inference, and inspect internals without heavy retooling-it's the single workflow improvement that saved us hours. For example, trying a tiny experimental session with a "GPT-5 mini" setup helped find regressions faster than redeploying the whole stack.

I'm still refining the routing heuristics and would love to hear how you handle edge cases like streaming long-document summarization or when retrieval latency spikes. What's your strategy?

Links and quick references:

Thanks for reading - and if you try the snippets, tell me what your before/after numbers look like.

Top comments (0)