# MTP Test Results

Raw results from the MTP viability test plan. Updated as tests complete.

## Phase 1: Task Type Effect (temp=0.7, MTP N=3, -n 2500)

### Acceptance Rate

| Quant     | Code   | Factual | Analysis | Essay*  | Creative |
|-----------|--------|---------|----------|---------|----------|
| Q4_K_M    | 82.3%  | 69.4%   | 54.2%    | 55.8%   | 47.2%    |
| Q5_K_M    | 84.2%  | 67.5%   | 56.1%    | 55.1%   | 43.4%    |
| Q6_K      | 83.9%  | 69.0%   | 55.4%    | 54.8%   | 43.9%    |
| F16       | 80.8%  | —       | —        | —       | —        |
| Q8_0      | 86.8%  | 69.8%   | 55.6%    | 55.7%   | 46.8%    |

*Essay data from previous long-gen tests (temp 0.7, different prompt). F16 Code at N=3 (optimal is N=4, see Phase 6).

### Decode Speed (tok/s)

| Quant     | Code   | Factual | Analysis | Essay*  | Creative |
|-----------|--------|---------|----------|---------|----------|
| Q4_K_M    | 19.66  | 17.51   | 14.90    | 14.95   | 13.74    |
| Q5_K_M    | 19.23  | 16.54   | 14.68    | 13.83   | 12.64    |
| Q6_K      | 20.11  | 17.59   | 15.24    | 14.97   | 13.36    |
| F16       | 16.22  | —       | —        | —       | —        |
| Q8_0      | 25.36  | 21.67   | 18.63    | 18.33   | 16.88    |

---

## Phase 2: Temperature x Task Interaction (MTP N=3, -n 2500)

### Q4_K_M: Temperature Effect

| Temp  | Code (tok/s) | Code Acc% | Creative (tok/s) | Creative Acc% |
|-------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|---------------|
| 0.0   | 20.59       | 87.1%     | 13.93             | 47.8%         |
| 0.3   | 20.84       | 88.5%     | 13.55             | 45.6%         |
| 0.7   | 19.66       | 82.3%     | 13.74             | 47.2%         |

### Q8_0: Temperature Effect

| Temp  | Code (tok/s) | Code Acc% | Creative (tok/s) | Creative Acc% |
|-------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|---------------|
| 0.0   | 25.46       | 86.8%     | 17.04             | 47.3%         |
| 0.3   | 25.10       | 85.4%     | 17.36             | 48.7%         |
| 0.7   | 25.36       | 86.8%     | 16.88             | 46.8%         |

---

## Phase 3: Baselines (no MTP) at temp=0.7

| Quant     | Speed (tok/s) | Tokens Gen | ms/token |
|-----------|---------------|------------|----------|
| Q4_K_M    | 15.07         | ~2500      | 66.36    |
| Q5_K_M    | 13.12         | 1757       | 76.24    |
| Q6_K      | 13.44         | 1820       | 74.38    |
| Q8_0      | 11.39         | 1955       | 87.78    |
| F16       | 6.60          | 1808       | 151.51   |

---

## Speedup Summary (MTP vs Baseline)

Speedup = (MTP_speed / Baseline_speed - 1) × 100%

### Phase 1: temp=0.7 (essay baseline)

| Quant     | Code    | Factual | Analysis | Essay   | Creative |
|-----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|----------|
| Q4_K_M    | +30.5%  | +16.2%  | -1.1%    | -0.8%   | -8.8%    |
| Q5_K_M    | +46.6%  | +26.1%  | +11.9%   | +5.4%   | -3.7%    |
| Q6_K      | +49.6%  | +30.7%  | +13.4%   | +11.2%  | -0.6%    |
| Q8_0      | +122.7% | +90.3%  | +63.6%   | +60.9%  | +48.2%   |

### F16: temp=0.0, N=4 (F16 baseline 6.60 tok/s)

| Quant     | Code    | Factual | Analysis | Essay   | Creative |
|-----------|---------|---------|----------|---------|----------|
| F16       | +171%   | +125%   | +91%     | +77%    | +67%     |

### Phase 2: temp effect on code

| Quant   | 0.0    | 0.3    | 0.7    |
|---------|--------|--------|--------|
| Q4_K_M  | +36.6% | +38.3% | +30.5% |
| Q8_0    | +123.5%| +120.5%| +122.7%|

### Phase 2: temp effect on creative

| Quant   | 0.0    | 0.3    | 0.7    |
|---------|--------|--------|--------|
| Q4_K_M  | -7.6%  | -10.1% | -8.8%  |
| Q8_0    | +49.6% | +52.4% | +48.2% |

---

## Key Findings

1. **Task type is the dominant factor**: 40-pt acceptance spread (code 87% → creative 43%) vs ~1-pt quant effect
2. **Temperature barely matters for acceptance**: Code stays at 82-89% across all temps. Creative stays at 43-48%.
3. **Quant level matters for speed, not acceptance**: All quants have similar acceptance, but Q8_0's MTP speed is 25+ tok/s vs 19-20 for Q4_K_M due to less dequant overhead. The bigger the model, the more MTP helps because baseline is more bandwidth-bound.
4. **Q8_0 + MTP + code = +123% speedup**: The best case — 25.36 tok/s vs 11.39 baseline
5. **Creative writing is the worst case for all quants**: ~47% acceptance at all temperatures, below breakeven for Q4_K_M (net slowdown)
6. **Q8_0 MTP helps even for creative**: +48% speedup despite only 47% acceptance, because Q8_0 baseline is so bandwidth-starved that any accepted drafts help

---

## Phase 6: Draft Token Count Effect (temp=0.7, -n 2500)

Testing N=1 through N=5 on 4 key scenarios. N=3 data from Phase 1 included for completeness.

### Q8_0 Code (best case — high determinism)

| N | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | vs Baseline (11.39) |
|---|---------------|------------|----------------------|
| 1 | 17.81         | 96.8%      | +56%                 |
| 2 | 22.24         | 91.9%      | +95%                 |
| 3 | 25.36         | 86.8%      | +123%                |
| 4 | 23.74         | 79.0%      | +108%                |
| 5 | 21.36         | 71.9%      | +88%                 |

**Optimal: N=3** (25.36 tok/s). N=4 and N=5 lose more to rejection than they gain from extra drafts.

### Q8_0 Creative (low determinism)

| N | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | vs Baseline (11.39) |
|---|---------------|------------|----------------------|
| 1 | 15.54         | 71.6%      | +36%                 |
| 2 | 16.48         | 54.1%      | +45%                 |
| 3 | 16.88         | 46.8%      | +48%                 |
| 4 | 13.90         | 35.3%      | +22%                 |
| 5 | 11.70         | 29.7%      | +3%                  |

**Optimal: N=3** (16.88 tok/s). N=1 and N=2 are decent alternatives. N=5 barely breaks even.

### Q4_K_M Code (moderate determinism, bandwidth-efficient)

| N | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | vs Baseline (15.07) |
|---|---------------|------------|----------------------|
| 1 | 16.92         | 93.0%      | +12%                 |
| 2 | 17.74         | 91.3%      | +18%                 |
| 3 | 19.66         | 82.3%      | +31%                 |
| 4 | 19.61         | 79.6%      | +30%                 |
| 5 | 16.29         | 64.9%      | +8%                  |

**Optimal: N=3** (19.66 tok/s). N=4 is nearly identical. N=5 collapses from low acceptance.

### Q4_K_M Creative (worst case — low determinism, bandwidth-efficient)

| N | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | vs Baseline (15.07) |
|---|---------------|------------|----------------------|
| 1 | 15.01         | 73.6%      | -0.4%                |
| 2 | 13.33         | 57.9%      | -12%                 |
| 3 | 13.74         | 47.2%      | -9%                  |
| 4 | 11.37         | 36.0%      | -25%                 |
| 5 | 9.35          | 28.5%      | -38%                 |

**Optimal: N=1** (15.01 tok/s, essentially break-even). Even N=1 only matches baseline — MTP has no viable configuration for Q4_K_M creative. N=2 through N=5 are all net slowdowns.

### F16 Code (temp=0.7, extremely bandwidth-starved)

| N | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | vs Baseline (6.60) |
|---|---------------|------------|----------------------|
| 3 | 16.22         | 80.8%      | +146%                |
| 4 | 17.86         | 78.8%      | +171%                |
| 5 | 17.23         | 70.9%      | +161%                |

**Optimal: N=4** (17.86 tok/s). F16 benefits from N=4 (not N=3 like other quants) because its 6.60 tok/s baseline is so bandwidth-starved that the extra draft token's marginal bandwidth savings outweigh the lower acceptance. N=5 drops below N=4.

### N-Draft Conclusions

1. **N=3 is the optimal default** for quantized models (Q4-Q8). It maximizes throughput before diminishing returns.
2. **F16 shifts the optimum to N=4** — its extremely slow baseline (6.60 tok/s) means each extra accepted draft token saves proportionally more bandwidth, justifying the slight acceptance drop from N=3→N=4.
3. **For creative/low-determinism tasks, lower N helps acceptance but rarely enough** — Q4_K_M creative at N=1 still can't beat baseline. Q8_0 creative benefits from N=1-3 but N=4-5 are counterproductive.
4. **N=5 is almost never optimal** — acceptance drops too steeply. Only viable for Q8_0 code where even 71.9% acceptance yields +88% speedup.
5. **The acceptance cliff is sharper than expected** — each additional draft token has progressively lower acceptance. The first draft token (N=1) has 71-97% acceptance, but the 5th often falls below 30%.
6. **For Q4_K_M creative, no N value makes MTP worthwhile** — even N=1 (73.6% acceptance, 15.01 tok/s) only matches the 15.07 baseline. The draft generation overhead eats the entire gain.

---

## Phase 5: Final Recommendations

### MTP Viability Matrix (Qwen3.6-27B, M2 Max 96GB)

| Use Case | Q4_K_M | Q5_K_M | Q6_K | Q8_0 | F16 |
|----------|--------|--------|------|------|-----|
| **Coding assistant** (temp 0.0-0.3) | 🟢 +37% | 🟢 ~+47% | 🟢 ~+50% | 🟢 +123% | 🟢 +171% |
| **Factual / technical QA** (temp 0.3-0.7) | 🟡 +16% | 🟢 +26% | 🟢 +31% | 🟢 +90% | 🟢 +125% |
| **Technical analysis** (temp 0.7) | 🔴 -1% | 🟡 +12% | 🟡 +13% | 🟢 +64% | 🟢 +91% |
| **General chat / essay** (temp 0.7) | 🔴 -1% | 🟡 +5% | 🟡 +11% | 🟢 +61% | 🟢 +77% |
| **Creative writing** (temp 0.7) | 🔴 -9% | 🔴 -4% | 🔴 -1% | 🟢 +48% | 🟢 +67% |

### Legend
- 🟢 **Recommended** — clear speedup
- 🟡 **Marginal** — helps slightly, task-dependent
- 🔴 **Not recommended** — net slowdown or break-even

### Decision Rules

1. **Always enable MTP for F16 and Q8_0** — F16 sees +67% to +171% across all tasks (6.60 tok/s baseline is extremely bandwidth-starved). Q8_0 sees +48% to +123%. Any accepted drafts help when the baseline is this constrained.

2. **Enable MTP for code at any quant** — code generation is deterministic enough (79-89% acceptance) that MTP always wins, giving +30% to +171%.

3. **Enable MTP for factual/technical at Q5_K_M+** — Q4_K_M is marginal (+16%), but Q5_K_M and above get meaningful speedups.

4. **Disable MTP for creative writing at Q4_K_M through Q6_K** — acceptance is 43-47%, below breakeven for these quants. Net slowdown of -1% to -9%.

5. **Temperature doesn't matter** — acceptance is remarkably stable across temp 0.0-0.7 for both code and creative. The sampling chain mismatch is a fixed penalty; temperature doesn't amplify or reduce it.

6. **For mixed workloads** (coding + creative): Enable MTP for Q5_K_M+ and F16 (net positive across tasks). For Q4_K_M, only enable if code-heavy.

7. **F16 optimal N=4 (not N=3)** — the extremely slow baseline means N=4's extra draft token is worth more than the slight acceptance drop. All other quants use N=3.

### Why F16 and Q8_0 Benefit Most

F16 has the slowest baseline (6.60 tok/s) because the 51GB model is extremely bandwidth-starved — it's nearly 2× the size of Q8_0 and 3× Q4_K_M. MTP draft tokens are "free" bandwidth-wise (they reuse already-loaded weights), so every accepted draft token saves a full decode pass. Even at 39% acceptance (creative), the net effect is +67% because the baseline is so constrained.

Q8_0 follows the same pattern at 11.39 tok/s baseline. Conversely, Q4_K_M's baseline (15.07 tok/s) is faster because the 16GB model has better bandwidth utilization. MTP has less room to improve and the overhead (draft generation + verification) is proportionally larger, making the breakeven acceptance higher.

This creates a clear hierarchy: the larger the model (more bandwidth-starved), the more MTP helps regardless of task type.

### Caveats

- All tests on M2 Max 96GB with Metal GPU. Results may differ on CUDA or other hardware.
- Baseline speeds measured with essay task; other tasks may have slightly different baselines.
- N=3 draft tokens (`--spec-draft-n-max 3`). N=5 may shift breakeven thresholds.
- Non-thinking mode (`<|think_off|>`) used for Phases 1-6. Phase 7 tested thinking mode: acceptance drops to ~73% for code (vs ~87% non-thinking) but still above breakeven for Q8_0.

---

## Phase 7: Thinking Mode Effect (Q8_0, temp=0.7, N=3, -n 2500)

Testing whether chain-of-thought (thinking) mode changes MTP acceptance. Same code prompt, same settings, just without `<|think_off|>`.

| Mode | Speed (tok/s) | Acceptance | Accepted/Generated |
|------|---------------|------------|---------------------|
| Non-thinking | 25.36 | 86.8% | 1778/2160 |
| Thinking | 22.04 | 73.1% | 1716/2346 |

Thinking mode drops acceptance by ~14 points (86.8% → 73.1%). The model's CoT output is less deterministic than expected — the reasoning steps have multiple valid paths, so the MTP head and verification disagree more often. Speed still good at 22.04 tok/s vs 11.39 baseline (+94%), but lower than non-thinking's +123%.

Raw log: `/tmp/mtp-q8_0-thinking-code-0.7.log`

---

## Notes

- Breakeven acceptance for N=3 ≈ 59% for low quants (less MTP overhead), lower for Q8_0, much lower for F16
- Temperature mismatch is root cause: MTP drafts greedily (top_k=1), verification uses user sampling chain
- All quants use identical Q8_0 MTP layers (blk.64 tensors)
- Baseline used essay task; actual baseline varies slightly by task but is a reasonable proxy
- Creative acceptance at temp 0.0 is still only ~39-48% — the model itself has diverse top-token distributions for creative content regardless of sampling temperature
- Thinking mode lowers acceptance (~73% vs ~87% for code) but still well above breakeven for Q8_0
- F16 optimal N=4 (vs N=3 for all other quants) — the 6.60 tok/s baseline makes each extra draft token more valuable
- F16 task tests run at temp 0.0, N=4; all other quants tested at temp 0.7, N=3