Quiz with answers — Chunking, causality, and parallel prefill
Answer all eight questions, then check the score. Open only the explanations needed for remediation.
1. Solve the worked-case variant: Move from 8 to 10 tokens with chunk size 4. Draw the chunks, local causal masks, and states carried between chunks.
Show answer
C. Chunk sizes are [4,4,2]. The first two use 4×4 triangles; the last uses a 2×2 triangle. End states S₄ then S₈ cross boundaries; no position may read a future token. The correct answer executes the requested change and gives a checkable result; the other texts do not close this calculation or trace.
2. Which causal order correctly connects the first three stages of “Chunking, causality, and parallel prefill”?
Show answer
A. Prefill and decode → Naive recurrence → Split into chunks The chain follows the taught progression; reversing stages consumes a representation or state before it is produced.
3. If “Split into chunks” is removed, which diagnostic method is defensible?
Show answer
D. Keep the same input, predict the first output that depends on “Split into chunks,” then compare the before/after trace. One intervention and a prior prediction make the delta attributable to the removed mechanism.
4. Which verdict respects this session’s validity boundary?
Show answer
B. Chunking improves execution; it does not automatically change the information capacity of state. The correct answer bounds the conclusion; the others turn a local relation into a global guarantee.
5. Which evidence best matches the stated status of “Chunking, causality, and parallel prefill”?
Show answer
C. Established mechanisms; numerical simplifications are pedagogical. Product or mechanism evidence must remain attributed and measured; availability and completion do not prove value.
6. When should a simpler baseline be preferred to “Incoming and outgoing state”?
Show answer
A. When a controlled test shows equivalent quality with lower memory, latency, or complexity. The choice depends on a measured trade-off on the real workload, not novelty or one isolated metric.
7. A learner gets the right result but cannot explain “Naive recurrence.” Which remediation is most useful?
Show answer
D. Rebuild the first missing transformation, label its inputs and outputs, then test a neighboring case. The remediation targets the first causal break and then requires transfer instead of rewarding a guessed result.
8. Which submission actually demonstrates the outcome “Explain causal triangular structure.”?
Show answer
B. A trace with starting data, transformations, observed result, boundary, and next experiment. The correct submission makes the reasoning reproducible and the verdict revisable by future measurement.