Qwen2.5-1M Technical Report
We introduce Qwen2.5-1M, a series of models that extend the context length to 1 million tokens. Compared to the previous 128K version, the Qwen2.5-1M series have significantly enhanced long-context capabilities through long-context pre-training and post-training. Key techniques such as long data synthesis, progressive pre-training, and multi-stage supervised fine-tuning are employed to effectively enhance long-context performance while reducing training costs. To promote the use of long-context models among a broader user base, we present and open-source our inference framework. This framework includes a length extrapolation method that can expand the model context lengths by at least four times, or even more, without additional training. To reduce inference costs, we implement a sparse attention method along with chunked prefill optimization for deployment scenarios and a sparsity refinement method to improve precision. Additionally, we detail our optimizations in the inference engine, including kernel optimization, pipeline parallelism, and scheduling optimization, which significantly enhance overall inference performance. By leveraging our inference framework, the Qwen2.5-1M models achieve a remarkable 3x to 7x prefill speedup in scenarios with 1 million tokens of context. This framework provides an efficient and powerful solution for developing applications that require long-context processing using open-source models. The Qwen2.5-1M series currently includes the open-source models Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct-1M and Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct-1M, as well as the API-accessed model Qwen2.5-Turbo. Evaluations show that Qwen2.5-1M models have been greatly improved in long-context tasks without compromising performance in short-context scenarios. Specifically, the Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct-1M model significantly outperforms GPT-4o-mini in long-context tasks and supports contexts eight times longer.
Discussion
Host: Hey everyone, and welcome back to the podcast! I'm your host, Leo, and I'm super excited about today's topic. We're diving into something that's absolutely fundamental to the world of research and academia, but it might not be something that everyone's familiar with: arXiv.
Guest: Hey Leo, yeah, I'm really looking forward to this conversation too. arXiv, it’s kind of like this hidden gem, right? So many people are writing about scientific breakthroughs and research but they don't always go to a big public forum. Instead they get placed here, where other researchers go.
Host: Exactly! It's not exactly your everyday news source, but for anyone in the STEM fields, and increasingly even in social sciences, it's a goldmine. For those who haven’t encountered it before, arXiv is essentially an open-access repository for scholarly articles, known as preprints, in various fields.
Guest: That's a good way to put it, a goldmine. And it's not just a passive library, it's an active ecosystem for sharing knowledge at a rapid pace. Preprints, the key word there, mean that the articles often appear on arXiv before they're published in peer-reviewed journals. This whole idea of getting research out fast is really important.
Host: Right, speed is definitely a big factor here. The traditional academic publishing process can be quite slow, sometimes taking months, even years, to go from initial research to publication. And that's where arXiv steps in. Think of it as a kind of 'early release' for research, allowing scientists to quickly share their findings with the community and get crucial feedback.
Guest: Yeah, that makes so much sense. It’s like the difference between a film festival and a nationwide release. The festival lets the first eyes see the art, get feedback, and then comes the wide distribution. It allows researchers to establish priority and get those initial opinions. The feedback loop is critical, because, after all, science is a process.
Host: Absolutely. It not only speeds things up, but it also fosters this open and collaborative approach to scientific advancement. This kind of transparency can often lead to quicker breakthroughs. For example, the pandemic made this so, so clear. So much research was being published on arXiv at speed in order to combat the spread.
Guest: Oh definitely. During the pandemic, it was crucial! That immediate access to new research was a game-changer in our fight against the virus. And you’re right, the transparency factor is really significant. It allows other researchers to see how a study was conducted and to build upon it, creating a sort of a collaborative, iterative system. I think the community really benefits from that level of access.
Host: And it’s interesting because it’s not just about the speed of dissemination, it’s also about making research available to a wider audience. Traditionally, access to academic journals can be quite expensive, often hidden behind paywalls. arXiv, with its open-access model, levels the playing field. It’s free for anyone to access, which helps promote equity and broader engagement with scientific findings.
Guest: Completely agree, it’s democratizing knowledge. That paywall situation with traditional journals can be a real hurdle, particularly for researchers from smaller institutions or from developing countries. arXiv helps to remove these barriers and ensures that research is accessible to anyone with an internet connection. It kind of embodies the spirit of what science should really be about.
Host: Exactly! I think it's a real testament to the power of open access and how it can reshape scientific practices. Now, while it does have clear advantages, there's obviously a few caveats to keep in mind. The papers on arXiv haven't gone through the same rigorous peer-review process as journal publications. Therefore, you always have to be a bit more cautious when interpreting the results you find there.
Guest: That's a super important point. It's like the difference between a rough draft and a final published book. The articles on arXiv aren't bad by any means but they’re not always perfect, they might be lacking full datasets or analyses. There's always the chance for errors, and therefore there's also a need for scrutiny and critical evaluation on the reader’s part when you go to arXiv. It really highlights the need to be an informed consumer of information.
Host: Precisely. I think it's crucial to understand the difference between a preprint and a peer-reviewed publication. A preprint gives you the immediate research, and it can be absolutely invaluable in gaining a quick overview of a topic, but you can't rely on it as the final, definitive answer. It’s a starting point for researchers and allows you to keep up with the ever-evolving scientific landscape, as a jumping off point for your own analysis.
Guest: Yeah, and I think that's one of the skills that any budding scientist or researcher learns. You need to evaluate the source and context, and with a preprint it's key to remember that the work might still be in progress. It allows for conversation and critique from the scientific community, but the paper may not yet have the final stamp of approval, so to speak. It's important to keep that in mind.
Host: And it's not just about identifying potential errors, it's also about understanding the trajectory of a specific line of research. Seeing an article on arXiv is like getting a sneak peek into the process of scientific inquiry. You can see how scientists are thinking about a problem, the methods they're employing, and their preliminary results. This also makes it more transparent, as the public can see and assess the scientific process.
Guest: Definitely, and that kind of insight into the process itself is invaluable. It lets you follow the development of an idea, to see how it evolves from its initial stages to a full-fledged study. And I think it helps to demystify the scientific process a bit for people. So often the public might think of science as this set of cold, unchangeable facts, but arXiv helps to show that it’s a dynamic and iterative process.
Host: Exactly! And speaking of the content itself, arXiv covers a huge range of subjects, primarily focusing on areas like physics, mathematics, computer science, statistics, and quantitative biology, and more recently there's also been a growing presence in fields like economics and social sciences. It's really a diverse collection of research.
Guest: Absolutely! It started out very much in the realm of physics, but it has grown exponentially over time. It's incredible to see that breadth, and it just goes to show how pervasive and useful the concept of open preprints is becoming across disciplines. It’s not just for hardcore scientists in lab coats anymore, which I think is great.
Host: Right. And it's become such an integral part of the academic research process. When I was doing my research, I remember the amount of times I checked ArXiv for the newest papers. It's really become a kind of ‘go-to’ place for staying updated on cutting-edge research, and you’ll see many researchers actively monitor their specific areas to see what new developments are occurring.
Guest: Yeah, that makes perfect sense. It's kind of become an informal 'must-check' for any researcher. The ease of access and the immediate availability of new research make it an invaluable resource, so it’s no wonder that so many people look there. I think that's what makes it so powerful and why it has become such an important part of academic culture.
Host: And that's exactly the point. It's really redefined how scientific knowledge is shared and consumed. The speed, the accessibility, and the collaborative nature of it are all incredibly transformative. It's something that I think more people outside of academia should be aware of, not just as a source of information, but as a window into the scientific process itself.
Guest: I completely agree. And this idea of being a part of that scientific community is really something to admire about arXiv. It’s not just a resource, it’s a community, an open platform where ideas are exchanged, critiques are given, and the scientific process itself is visible. It's democratizing knowledge but it’s also promoting participation in the field too. What do you think about how it deals with new submissions?