Xinyu Lian

Xinyu Lian, Yinfang Chen, Runxiang Cheng et al.

Misconfigurations are major causes of software failures. Existing practices rely on developer-written rules or test cases to validate configurations, which are expensive. Machine learning (ML) for configuration validation is considered a promising direction, but has been facing challenges such as the need of large-scale field data and system-specific models. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in addressing some of the long-lasting limitations of ML-based configuration validation. We present a first analysis on the feasibility and effectiveness of using LLMs for configuration validation. We empirically evaluate LLMs as configuration validators by developing a generic LLM-based configuration validation framework, named Ciri. Ciri employs effective prompt engineering with few-shot learning based on both valid configuration and misconfiguration data. Ciri checks outputs from LLMs when producing results, addressing hallucination and nondeterminism of LLMs. We evaluate Ciri's validation effectiveness on eight popular LLMs using configuration data of ten widely deployed open-source systems. Our analysis (1) confirms the potential of using LLMs for configuration validation, (2) explores design space of LLMbased validators like Ciri, and (3) reveals open challenges such as ineffectiveness in detecting certain types of misconfigurations and biases towards popular configuration parameters.

Xinyu Lian, Walid Krichene, Beichen Huang et al.

Quantization is widely used to reduce the inference cost of large language models, but its effect on reasoning models is not fully captured by final-answer accuracy or per-token latency. We show that low-bit post-training quantization can introduce a hidden test-time compute cost: quantized reasoning models often generate longer chains of thought even when they still answer correctly. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, scientific question answering, and agentic tool-use benchmarks, we find that INT4/INT3 quantization can preserve accuracy but increase reasoning-token usage, offsetting the expected per-token speedup. To measure this effect, we introduce the CoT Token Inflation Ratio, which compares reasoning length between quantized and full-precision models averaged across all evaluation benchmarks. We further show that token inflation is accompanied by behavioral changes in the reasoning trace, including more intermediate steps and greater semantic repetition. These changes translate into measurable end-to-end real-world serving penalties. Finally, we evaluate mitigation strategies and find that prompting and decoding-time sampling offer inconsistent accuracy-length trade-offs, while quantization-aware training shows more promise in reducing both accuracy degradation and token inflation. Our results suggest that reasoning-token usage should be reported alongside accuracy when evaluating quantized reasoning models.