Paper
LMetric: Simple is Better - Multiplication May Be All You Need for LLM Request Scheduling
Authors
Dingyan Zhang, Jinbo Han, Kaixi Zhang, Xingda Wei, Sijie Shen, Chenguang Fang, Wenyuan Yu, Jingren Zhou, Rong Chen
Abstract
High-quality LLM request scheduling requires achieving two key objectives: whether the routed instance has KV$ to accelerate the request execution and whether the workload is balanced across instances. Achieving both objectives is challenging because pursuing one objective may compromise the other. Current approaches adopt various combinators (e.g., linear combinations) to compute a scheduling score combining indicators for the two objectives, which are complex in that they either require significant workload-specific hyperparameter tuning or model-hardware-aware simulator development, and could still lead to suboptimal performance. In this paper, we show that using a simple multiplication of two carefully chosen indicators-one for KV$-aware (new prefill tokens if routed to an instance) and one for load balancing-aware (current batch size of the instance)-as the scheduling score can simultaneously achieve both objectives well without any hyperparameter tuning. The key idea is that the multiplied score considers both objectives in a manner similar to a linear combination, with a nice property that the original hyperparameters are canceled out during comparison so we don't need tuning to find the best parameters. The two indicators are chosen based on our analysis of LLM characteristics, and our extensive experiments show that this simple approach can reduce TTFT by 92% and 52%, and TPOT by 21% and 20%, compared to vLLM-v1 and a production scheduler on real-world workloads covering chatbots, API calls, and coding agents. We also mathematically derive the conditions under which multiplication may fail, and find that such conditions are extremely rare in practice and can be detected (and mitigated) beforehand.
Metadata
Related papers
Vibe Coding XR: Accelerating AI + XR Prototyping with XR Blocks and Gemini
Ruofei Du, Benjamin Hersh, David Li, Nels Numan, Xun Qian, Yanhe Chen, Zhongy... • 2026-03-25
Comparing Developer and LLM Biases in Code Evaluation
Aditya Mittal, Ryan Shar, Zichu Wu, Shyam Agarwal, Tongshuang Wu, Chris Donah... • 2026-03-25
The Stochastic Gap: A Markovian Framework for Pre-Deployment Reliability and Oversight-Cost Auditing in Agentic Artificial Intelligence
Biplab Pal, Santanu Bhattacharya • 2026-03-25
Retrieval Improvements Do Not Guarantee Better Answers: A Study of RAG for AI Policy QA
Saahil Mathur, Ryan David Rittner, Vedant Ajit Thakur, Daniel Stuart Schiff, ... • 2026-03-25
MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination
Zhuo Li, Yupeng Zhang, Pengyu Cheng, Jiajun Song, Mengyu Zhou, Hao Li, Shujie... • 2026-03-25
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15202v1</id>\n <title>LMetric: Simple is Better - Multiplication May Be All You Need for LLM Request Scheduling</title>\n <updated>2026-03-16T12:43:32Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.15202v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.15202v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>High-quality LLM request scheduling requires achieving two key objectives: whether the routed instance has KV$ to accelerate the request execution and whether the workload is balanced across instances. Achieving both objectives is challenging because pursuing one objective may compromise the other. Current approaches adopt various combinators (e.g., linear combinations) to compute a scheduling score combining indicators for the two objectives, which are complex in that they either require significant workload-specific hyperparameter tuning or model-hardware-aware simulator development, and could still lead to suboptimal performance. In this paper, we show that using a simple multiplication of two carefully chosen indicators-one for KV$-aware (new prefill tokens if routed to an instance) and one for load balancing-aware (current batch size of the instance)-as the scheduling score can simultaneously achieve both objectives well without any hyperparameter tuning. The key idea is that the multiplied score considers both objectives in a manner similar to a linear combination, with a nice property that the original hyperparameters are canceled out during comparison so we don't need tuning to find the best parameters. The two indicators are chosen based on our analysis of LLM characteristics, and our extensive experiments show that this simple approach can reduce TTFT by 92% and 52%, and TPOT by 21% and 20%, compared to vLLM-v1 and a production scheduler on real-world workloads covering chatbots, API calls, and coding agents. We also mathematically derive the conditions under which multiplication may fail, and find that such conditions are extremely rare in practice and can be detected (and mitigated) beforehand.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.DC'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.OS'/>\n <published>2026-03-16T12:43:32Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.DC'/>\n <author>\n <name>Dingyan Zhang</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Jinbo Han</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Kaixi Zhang</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Xingda Wei</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Sijie Shen</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Chenguang Fang</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Wenyuan Yu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Jingren Zhou</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Rong Chen</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}