Llama 4 Scout: A Technical Analysis of Native Multimodality, Sparse Architecture, and the 10-Million Token Context Frontier

Posted on by uplatzblog

1. Introduction: The Strategic Inflection of Open Weights

The release of the Llama 4 model family by Meta Platforms in April 2025 represents a definitive inflection point in the trajectory of artificial intelligence development, signaling a departure from the brute-force scaling laws that characterized the previous era of dense large language models. While the Llama 3 series established a high-water mark for dense transformer performance, Llama 4 introduces a fundamental architectural restructuring centered on sparsity, efficiency, and native multimodal integration. This report provides an exhaustive technical analysis of the Llama 4 ecosystem, with a specific and rigorous focus on the Llama 4 Scout variant—a 109-billion parameter model (17 billion active) engineered to challenge the boundaries of information retrieval and cross-modal synthesis.1

The industry landscape prior to Llama 4 was dominated by a bifurcation between closed-source frontier models, such as OpenAI’s GPT-4o and Google’s Gemini 1.5 Pro, which offered massive context windows and multimodal capabilities behind API paywalls, and open-weight models that, while capable, largely remained text-centric and context-constrained. Llama 4 Scout disrupts this dichotomy by democratizing “frontier-class” architecture. It operationalizes a theoretical context window of up to 10 million tokens and employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) design to decouple inference latency from model capacity.3 This strategic pivot moves the open ecosystem from merely imitating proprietary capabilities to potentially surpassing them in specialized domains such as high-volume data synthesis and edge-deployable reasoning.

This analysis posits that Llama 4 is not merely an iterative update but a targeted response to the “memory wall” and “compute wall” facing modern AI deployment. By utilizing an “early fusion” approach to multimodality, where visual and textual data share a unified embedding space from the initial layers, Llama 4 Scout attempts to resolve the disjointed reasoning often seen in “bolted-on” vision-language models.5 Furthermore, the introduction of Interleaved Rotary Positional Embeddings (iRoPE) to support infinite context horizons suggests a concerted effort to solve the “lost-in-the-middle” phenomenon that plagues long-context retrieval, although empirical validation of these claims reveals a complex reality of hardware constraints and algorithmic trade-offs.7

The following sections will dissect the technical specifications of the Llama 4 Scout architecture, evaluating its MoE routing mechanisms, the mechanics of its native multimodal pipeline, the engineering behind its unprecedented context window, and the practical realities of its deployment on current hardware generations.

2. Architectural Paradigm: The Shift to Sparse Mixture-of-Experts

To fully appreciate the technical leap represented by Llama 4 Scout, one must first deconstruct the limitations of the dense architectures that preceded it. In a traditional dense transformer, every parameter in the model’s feed-forward networks (FFNs) is activated for every single token processed. This creates a linear coupling between the model’s total knowledge capacity (parameter count) and its computational cost (FLOPs per token). As models scaled to 70B or 405B parameters, the inference cost became prohibitive for real-time applications, necessitating massive clusters of GPUs for even moderate throughput.

2.1 Decoupling Capacity from Compute

Llama 4 abandons this dense paradigm in favor of a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture. This design replaces the standard dense FFN layers with a bank of specialized sub-networks, or “experts.” For every token generated, a learned gating mechanism (or router) selects a specific subset of these experts to process the input, leaving the vast majority of the model’s parameters idle for that specific computation step.9

In the specific configuration of Llama 4 Scout, the model houses a total of approximately 109 billion parameters. However, during inference, the routing algorithm activates only 17 billion parameters per token. This 17B figure is the “active parameter” count, which determines the computational cost and latency of the model, effectively allowing Scout to run at the speed of a medium-sized model while accessing the knowledge base of a large-scale model.2

Table 1: Architectural Comparison of the Llama 4 Family vs. Predecessors

 

Feature Llama 4 Scout Llama 4 Maverick Llama 3 70B (Dense)
Total Parameters 109 Billion 2 400 Billion 12 70 Billion
Active Parameters 17 Billion 2 17 Billion 12 70 Billion
Architectural Type Sparse MoE Sparse MoE Dense Transformer
Number of Experts 16 Experts 2 128 Experts 2 N/A
Context Window 10 Million Tokens 3 1 Million Tokens 7 8,192 / 128k Tokens
Inference Efficiency High (runs on single H100) Medium (requires distributed) Low (requires active memory)
Primary Specialization Retrieval, Synthesis, Vision Reasoning, Creative, Code General Purpose

The strategic divergence between Scout and its sibling, Llama 4 Maverick, lies in the granularity of their expert systems. While both models utilize 17 billion active parameters, Scout distributes its total capacity across just 16 experts, whereas Maverick utilizes 128 experts.2 This implies that Scout’s experts are individually larger and more generalized (“fat experts”), likely optimized for broad data ingestion and stable retrieval over extremely long contexts. In contrast, Maverick’s “fine-grained” experts allow for highly specialized processing paths, enabling superior performance in nuanced reasoning and creative tasks at the cost of higher routing complexity.13

2.2 The Routing Mechanism and Load Balancing

The efficiency of an MoE model hinges on its router. Llama 4 employs a top-k routing strategy, where the router calculates a probability distribution over the available experts and directs the token to the top $k$ experts with the highest scores. While the exact $k$ value for Llama 4 Scout is not explicitly disclosed in the snippets, standard industry practices for similar architectures (like Mixtral) often use $k=2$, meaning each token is processed by two experts.

A critical challenge in MoE training is “expert collapse,” where the router converges to utilizing only a few experts for all tokens, effectively turning the sparse model back into a smaller dense model and wasting the remaining parameters. To mitigate this, Llama 4 likely incorporates auxiliary loss functions during training to encourage load balancing, ensuring that tokens are distributed relatively evenly across the 16 experts of Scout. This load balancing is crucial for maintaining the “109B total parameter” effective capacity; if only a few experts are used, the model’s effective knowledge base shrinks.14

Furthermore, Llama 4 incorporates the concept of a “Shared Expert”—a set of parameters that are always active for every token, regardless of the routing decision. This shared expert handles universal language features and fundamental grammatical structures, providing a stable foundation upon which the specialized routed experts can apply their domain-specific knowledge. This hybrid approach stabilizes training and improves the consistency of outputs across diverse inputs.11

3. Native Multimodality: The Early Fusion Revolution

Perhaps the most significant architectural advancement in Llama 4 is the transition to “native multimodality” via an early fusion design. Previous generations of open-source multimodal models, including Llama 3.2, typically relied on a “late fusion” or adapter-based approach. In those systems, a separate, pre-trained vision encoder (such as CLIP or SigLIP) processed images independently, and the resulting visual embeddings were projected into the LLM’s input space via a cross-attention layer or a simple linear adapter. This often resulted in a disconnect between the visual and textual understanding, as the LLM was essentially “reading a description” of the image provided by the encoder rather than “seeing” it directly.5

3.1 Early Fusion Mechanics

Llama 4 fundamentally alters this pipeline. In its early fusion architecture, visual inputs are tokenized and injected into the transformer layers alongside text tokens from the very beginning of the processing stream.

The process functions as follows:

  1. Unified Tokenization: Images are divided into patches and encoded into visual tokens. These tokens are treated mathematically identically to text tokens within the model’s embedding space.
  2. Joint Representation Learning: Because the transformer’s self-attention mechanism operates over a mixed sequence of text and visual tokens across all layers, the model learns joint representations. A visual token representing a “cat” and the text token “cat” are pulled closer together in the high-dimensional latent space during pre-training.11
  3. Cross-Modal Reasoning: This deep integration allows for superior coreference resolution and reasoning. For example, when a user asks, “What is the man in the red shirt holding?”, the attention heads can directly attend from the text tokens “red shirt” to the specific visual patches containing those pixels, without relying on an intermediate, compressed summary from a frozen vision encoder.6

The vision encoder utilized in this pipeline is derived from MetaCLIP, but it undergoes a specific training regimen. Initially, it is trained with a frozen LLM backbone to align visual features with the language model’s existing embedding space. Subsequently, the entire model—vision encoder, projector, and LLM—is unfrozen for a joint pre-training phase on massive multimodal datasets (40 trillion tokens), allowing the weights to adapt to each other dynamically.5

3.2 Video Understanding and the 48-Frame Limit

While Llama 4 Scout is marketed as capable of processing video, technically, it treats video as a sequence of images. The model does not employ 3D convolution or temporal attention modules typical of specialized video transformers. Instead, it utilizes a frame-sampling strategy.

The research indicates a strict input limit of 48 frames per video.17

  • Sampling Rate: The model typically samples video at a rate of 1 frame per second (FPS). This implies that for a video shorter than 48 seconds, it captures a reasonable temporal resolution. However, for longer videos, the sampling must become sparser, or the video must be truncated.
  • Contextual Implications: With a limit of 48 frames, the model’s ability to understand long-term temporal dependencies or minute-to-minute state changes in a movie or lengthy surveillance feed is physically constrained. It is essentially viewing a storyboard or a slideshow rather than a continuous video stream.20
  • Tokenization Cost: Each of these 48 frames is resized (e.g., to 384×384 resolution) and tokenized. Even with this limit, a single video input consumes a significant portion of the “active” context window (distinct from the massive retrieval window), requiring efficient management of visual tokens to prevent them from overwhelming the text prompt.19

3.3 The Ambiguity of “Native” Audio

A critical area of ambiguity in the Llama 4 technical documentation concerns audio processing. While high-level marketing materials and press releases explicitly claim that Llama 4 models can “listen to audio and summarize it” and process “inputs from… audio sources,” independent technical verification paints a more nuanced picture.12

  • Marketing vs. Reality: The official blog posts highlight audio capabilities as a key differentiator.22 However, the model cards on platforms like Hugging Face and Groq primarily list text and image inputs/outputs, with audio often relegated to separate pricing tiers or listed as “experimental”.23
  • Pipeline Dependency: It is highly probable that the “native” audio capability referenced in marketing relies on a tight integration with a speech encoder (likely a variant of Whisper or a similar Meta-proprietary audio foundation model) that tokenizes audio into the same embedding space as text and images. However, unlike the vision component, which is fully integrated via early fusion, the audio component often appears to be handled via an auxiliary pipeline in current public deployments.25
  • Deployment Status: Many users report that while the architecture supports audio, the publicly released weights for Scout might have this modality de-prioritized or require specific unreleased wrappers to function “natively” without an external transcriber. Thus, for practical engineering purposes today, Llama 4 Scout is best classified as a Vision-Language Model (VLM) with potential, but currently gated, audio-native features.26

4. The 10 Million Token Frontier: Engineering Infinite Context

The headline feature of Llama 4 Scout is undoubtedly its 10 million token context window. To visualize this scale, 10 million tokens corresponds roughly to 15,000 standard novels, or the entire codebase of a large enterprise operating system. Achieving this requires overcoming the quadratic scaling costs of the attention mechanism, which typically causes memory usage and compute time to explode as context length increases.

4.1 iRoPE: Interleaved Rotary Positional Embeddings

To enable this massive context, Meta introduced a novel positional encoding scheme known as iRoPE (Interleaved Rotary Positional Embedding).7

Standard RoPE (Rotary Positional Embeddings) rotates the query and key vectors in the attention mechanism to encode relative position. However, RoPE struggles to generalize far beyond the sequence lengths seen during training. iRoPE addresses this by interleaving attention layers:

  • RoPE Layers: Some layers utilize standard rotary embeddings to capture precise, local positional relationships.
  • NoPE Layers: Other layers utilize No Positional Encoding at all. In these layers, the model relies entirely on the causal mask and the content of the tokens themselves to infer relationships.

This hybrid approach allows the model to “stretch” its understanding of position. By not enforcing rigid positional indices at every layer, the model becomes more robust to the massive sequence lengths where absolute position indices would otherwise become indistinguishable or noisy. This technique is likely augmented by frequency scaling (similar to YaRN), which mathematically interpolates the positional frequencies to accommodate longer sequences without retraining the model from scratch.8

4.2 The Reality of “Needle in a Haystack” Retrieval

While the architecture theoretically supports 10 million tokens, the effective context—the length at which the model can accurately retrieve specific information—is subject to physical and algorithmic limitations.

Independent benchmarking reveals a phenomenon known as attention dilution. As the context window expands to millions of tokens, the probability mass of the attention mechanism (the “focus” of the model) is spread increasingly thin. Even with iRoPE, distinguishing a relevant “needle” (a specific fact) from millions of “haystack” tokens (irrelevant noise) becomes statistically difficult.29

  • Benchmark Degradation: Tests utilizing the “Needle in a Haystack” (NIAH) methodology show that while Llama 4 Scout maintains near-perfect recall up to 128k tokens, performance begins to show stochastic degradation as it pushes towards the multi-million mark. Specifically, recall accuracy can drop significantly when the relevant information is buried in the middle of a massive context (the “Lost in the Middle” phenomenon), rather than at the very beginning or end.29
  • Hallucination Risks: At extreme context lengths (e.g., >1M tokens), users have reported instances of the model “looping” or hallucinating, as the coherence of the global attention mechanism strains under the load of maintaining consistent narrative threads across such vast distances.32

4.3 The VRAM Bottleneck and KV Cache Management

The most immediate barrier to using the 10 million token window is hardware memory. The Key-Value (KV) cache—the memory required to store the attention context—grows linearly with sequence length.

  • Memory Math: Storing the KV cache for 10 million tokens in standard FP16 precision would require approximately 18.8 Terabytes of memory.33 This is orders of magnitude larger than the 80GB capacity of an NVIDIA H100 GPU.
  • Mitigation Strategies: To make Scout deployable, Meta and inference providers utilize aggressive quantization of the KV cache (e.g., down to FP8 or INT4) and PagedAttention techniques (popularized by vLLM). PagedAttention allows the KV cache to be fragmented and stored in non-contiguous memory blocks, and critically, permits offloading parts of the cache to system RAM (CPU memory) when GPU VRAM is full.35
  • Latency Trade-off: While offloading to CPU RAM allows the model to run with 10M tokens, it introduces significant latency due to the slow PCIe bus transfer speeds between CPU and GPU. This renders the full 10M context window practically usable only for non-latency-sensitive batch processing jobs, rather than interactive chat applications, unless one has access to a massive distributed cluster of GPUs.35

Consequently, most public API providers (like Groq and Together AI) initially cap Llama 4 Scout at significantly lower limits (e.g., 128k or 1M tokens) to ensure consistent performance and economic viability, reserving the full 10M capability for specialized enterprise endpoints.6

5. Performance Benchmarking: Theory vs. Practice

Evaluating Llama 4 Scout requires a nuanced comparison against both its open-weight peers (DeepSeek V3, Qwen 2.5) and closed-source proprietary models (GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5). The data indicates that Scout is a highly specialized tool rather than a universal “GPT-killer.”

5.1 Coding and Reasoning: The Scout’s Weakness

Benchmarks consistently highlight coding and complex reasoning as areas where Llama 4 Scout lags behind the state-of-the-art.

  • LiveCodeBench: Scout achieves a pass rate of approximately 38.1%, significantly trailing behind comparable models like DeepSeek V3 (~45%) and its own sibling, Llama 4 Maverick (~43%).25
  • DevQualityEval: Detailed analysis shows that while Scout performs adequately in code repair and transpilation (e.g., converting Python to Go), it struggles severely with generating new code from scratch, particularly in verbose languages like Java.39
  • Reasoning (GPQA/MMLU): On the GPQA benchmark (Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A), Scout scores 57.2%, noticeably lower than GPT-4o’s 70.1%.40 This deficit confirms that the “Scout” architecture—with fewer, broader experts—is optimized for information gathering and synthesis rather than deep, multi-step logical deduction.

5.2 Multimodal Supremacy: The Early Fusion Advantage

Where Scout excels is in multimodal tasks, validating the efficacy of its early fusion architecture.

  • DocVQA (Document Visual Q&A): Scout achieves a score of 94.4%, outperforming GPT-4o (92.8%).40 This capability makes it exceptionally suited for enterprise document processing workflows, such as extracting data from invoices, reading financial charts, or analyzing technical schematics.
  • ChartQA: Similarly, in interpreting charts and graphs, Scout scores 88.8%, surpassing GPT-4o at 85.7%.40
  • MathVista: In visual mathematics tasks, Scout scores 70.7%, beating GPT-4o’s 61.4%.40

Table 2: Comparative Benchmark Analysis

Benchmark Domain Metric Llama 4 Scout GPT-4o DeepSeek V3 Analysis
Visual Documents DocVQA 94.4% 92.8% N/A Scout Leads: Excellent for OCR/PDF analysis.
Visual Charts ChartQA 88.8% 85.7% N/A Scout Leads: Superior data extraction.
Coding LiveCodeBench 38.1% ~50%+ 45.8% Scout Lags: Not recommended for pure code generation.
General Knowledge MMLU 79.6% 85.7% ~81% Competitive: Strong generalist, but not SOTA.
Complex Reasoning GPQA 57.2% 70.1% 53.6% Weakness: Struggles with deep logic chains.

Source Data: 25

This dichotomy paints a clear picture: Llama 4 Scout is the premier open-weight model for “seeing and reading”—processing massive amounts of visual and textual data—but it should ideally be paired with a stronger reasoning model (like Maverick or GPT-4o) for “thinking and coding” based on that data.

6. Deployment Economics and Operational Reality

For organizations considering Llama 4 Scout, the decision ultimately rests on the trade-off between infrastructure cost and data sovereignty.

6.1 Inference Hardware and Quantization

Meta’s claim that Scout fits on a “single H100” is accurate but requires caveats regarding quantization.

  • FP16 (Full Precision): Loading the full 109B parameters in FP16 requires ~218 GB of VRAM. This exceeds the 80GB limit of a single H100, necessitating a cluster of at least 4 GPUs.33
  • INT4 (4-bit Quantization): By quantizing the weights to 4-bit, the model size shrinks to approximately 55-60 GB. This fits comfortably within a single H100 (80GB) or even a dual consumer-grade RTX 4090 setup (2x24GB = 48GB, effectively tight but possible with offloading).33
  • The Cost of Context: The “single GPU” claim evaporates once the context window is utilized. A 128k context window adds significant overhead, and a 10M context window is impossible on a single node without extreme CPU offloading, which reduces token generation speed to a crawl.35

6.2 The Pricing Disruption

In the API market, Llama 4 Scout acts as a deflationary force.

  • Price Point: With providers offering Scout at approximately $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens, it is roughly 30x cheaper than GPT-4o (approx. $2.50/$10.00).41
  • Economic Implication: This pricing structure makes “brute force” Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) economically viable. Instead of building complex vector databases to retrieve only the most relevant snippets, developers can simply dump entire documents or chapters into Scout’s context window for pennies, relying on its strong retrieval capabilities to find the answer.

6.3 Local Deployment Ecosystem

The open-source community has rapidly optimized Scout for local use. Tools like llama.cpp now support MoE offloading, allowing users to keep the active experts on the GPU while storing the inactive experts on slower system RAM. This hybrid inference allows consumer hardware to run the model with surprising speed, as only the 17B active parameters need fast VRAM access for any given token.35

7. Strategic Implications and Future Outlook

The release of Llama 4 Scout forces a re-evaluation of AI strategy across the industry.

7.1 The “Broken Lineage” of Local AI

Critics argue that Llama 4 has “broken the lineage” of accessible local AI. Previous Llama generations offered highly capable 8B and 70B models that fit neatly into consumer hardware tiers. Llama 4 Scout’s 109B parameter count (even if sparse) places it in an awkward “middle ground”—too large for a standard laptop, yet arguably overkill for simple tasks compared to the older Llama 3 8B. This suggests Meta is pivoting Llama toward “enterprise open weights”—targeting data centers and high-end workstations—rather than the hobbyist market.46

7.2 The Distillation Pipeline

The existence of Llama 4 Behemoth, the unreleased 2-trillion parameter teacher model, suggests that Scout and Maverick are products of model distillation. This implies that future updates to the Llama 4 family may not necessarily increase in parameter count but will likely increase in “intelligence density” as better distillation techniques transfer more reasoning power from Behemoth to the smaller models. This could eventually address Scout’s current deficiencies in coding and complex logic.13

7.3 Conclusion

Llama 4 Scout is a triumph of architectural efficiency. By combining MoE sparsity with native multimodality and an infinite-context design, it solves the specific problem of high-volume data synthesis at a fraction of the cost of dense models.

However, it is not a universal solution. Its constraints in coding, video length (48 frames), and deep reasoning mean it is best deployed as a specialized component in a larger AI system—the “Scout” that reads the map and gathers the intel, before passing the data to a “Commander” (like Maverick or a frontier model) to make the final strategic decision. For enterprises drowning in unstructured data—documents, images, and logs—Llama 4 Scout offers a powerful, cost-effective, and secure tool to turn that noise into signal.

Works cited

  1. Llama 4 Scout 17B-16E | Generative AI on Vertex AI – Google Cloud Documentation, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://docs.cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-ai/docs/partner-models/llama/llama4-scout
  2. Welcome Llama 4 Maverick & Scout on Hugging Face, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://huggingface.co/blog/llama4-release
  3. Llama 4: Efficient Multimodal AI with 10M Token Context – i10X, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://i10x.ai/blog/llama-4-analysis
  4. What’s New in Llama 4 – A Practical Overview – RisingStack Engineering, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://blog.risingstack.com/llama-4-overview/
  5. Unpacking Meta’s Llama 4: Revolutionary Native Multimodality and Groundbreaking Architecture | Towards AI, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://towardsai.net/p/machine-learning/unpacking-metas-llama-4-revolutionary-native-multimodality-and-groundbreaking-architecture
  6. Llama 4: Breaking Down Meta’s Latest Powerhouse Model – DEV Community, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://dev.to/maxprilutskiy/llama-4-breaking-down-metas-latest-powerhouse-model-3k0p
  7. Llama 4 Technical Analysis: Decoding the Architecture Behind Meta’s Multimodal MoE Revolution | by Karan_bhutani | Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@karanbhutani477/llama-4-technical-analysis-decoding-the-architecture-behind-metas-multimodal-moe-revolution-535b2775d07d
  8. Llama 4’s Approach to Positional Information | by Deeraj Manjaray – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://deerajmanjaray.medium.com/llama-4s-approach-to-positional-information-0eb736179e5f
  9. Meta’s New Llama 4’s MoE Architecture Makes AI Faster & Cheaper | by Tahir – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@tahirbalarabe2/metas-new-llama-4-s-moe-architecture-makes-ai-faster-cheaper-635339e51e10
  10. Mixture of Experts (MoE) vs Dense LLMs, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://maximilian-schwarzmueller.com/articles/understanding-mixture-of-experts-moe-llms/
  11. Inside Llama 4: How Meta’s New Open-Source AI Crushes GPT-4o and Gemini – Devansh, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://machine-learning-made-simple.medium.com/inside-llama-4-how-metas-new-open-source-ai-crushes-gpt-4o-and-gemini-e3265f914599
  12. Meta Unveils Llama 4 Scout and Maverick | by Justin Downes | Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@justin.edgewoods/meta-unveils-llama-4-scout-and-maverick-97e7e4d02bac
  13. Specializations of Llama 4 Scout & Maverick Models: A Comparative Analysis – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@rajraftaar3/specializations-of-llama-4-scout-maverick-models-a-comparative-analysis-344b20e7f002
  14. Llama 4’s Secret Weapon: How Mixture-of-Experts Is Redefining AI Power! – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/gptalk/llama-4s-secret-weapon-how-mixture-of-experts-is-redefining-ai-power-6bfdb52e79a6
  15. Applying Mixture of Experts in LLM Architectures | NVIDIA Technical Blog, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/applying-mixture-of-experts-in-llm-architectures/
  16. Llama 4’s Architecture Deconstructed: MoE, iRoPE, and Early Fusion Explained – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@mandeep0405/llama-4s-architecture-deconstructed-moe-irope-and-early-fusion-explained-e58eb9403067
  17. Llama 4: Models, Architecture, Benchmarks & More | by Jatin Garg – Medium, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://medium.com/@jatingargiitk/llama-4-models-architecture-benchmarks-more-4f297d6dc0fb
  18. An Image Grid Can Be Worth a Video: Zero-shot Video Question Answering Using a VLM – IEEE Xplore, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel8/6287639/6514899/10802898.pdf
  19. Baichuan-Omni Technical Report – arXiv, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.08565
  20. DiT-Serve and DeepCoder: Enabling Video and Code Generation at Scale – UC Berkeley EECS, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2025/EECS-2025-46.pdf
  21. Improving LLM Video Understanding with 16 Frames Per Second – arXiv, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2503.13956v1
  22. What Is LLaMA 4? Everything You Need to Know – Resemble AI, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.resemble.ai/what-is-llama-4-everything-you-need-to-know/
  23. Llama 4 Scout – API, Providers, Stats – OpenRouter, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://openrouter.ai/meta-llama/llama-4-scout
  24. Meta Llama – Hugging Face, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://huggingface.co/meta-llama
  25. Llama 4: Benchmarks, API Pricing, Open Source – Apidog, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://apidog.com/blog/llama-4-api/
  26. No Audio Modality in Llama 4? : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1jsbqtj/no_audio_modality_in_llama_4/
  27. Llama 4: Meta’s multimodal revolution challenging GPT-4 – Swiftask, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.swiftask.ai/blog/llama-4
  28. YaRN: Efficient Context Window Extension of Large Language Models – arXiv, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2309.00071
  29. RAG is Not Dead with Llama 4’s 10M Context – unwind ai, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.theunwindai.com/p/rag-is-not-dead-with-llama-4-s-10m-context-9765
  30. Llama 4 Explained: Architecture, Long Context, and Native Multimodality – YouTube, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lqj69tZkPiE
  31. 🌀 RoPE (Rotary Position Embedding) — When AI finally learns where it is! 📍✨, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://huggingface.co/blog/RDTvlokip/when-ai-finally-learns-where-it-is
  32. Llama 4 Review: Real-World Use vs. Meta’s Hype – Monica, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://monica.im/blog/llama-4/
  33. Llama 4 GPU System Requirements (Scout, Maverick, Behemoth) – ApX Machine Learning, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://apxml.com/posts/llama-4-system-requirements
  34. How much VRAM for 10 millions context tokens with Llama 4 ? : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1k2wj2s/how_much_vram_for_10_millions_context_tokens_with/
  35. Is there any possible way we can run llama 4 on 48GB VRAM? : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1jsdhyd/is_there_any_possible_way_we_can_run_llama_4_on/
  36. Running inference and evaluating Llama 4 in Python | Generative-AI – Wandb, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://wandb.ai/byyoung3/Generative-AI/reports/Running-inference-and-evaluating-Llama-4-in-Python–VmlldzoxMjE2NTYxNA
  37. What is your opinion on using Llama 4’s 10M context window as purely a RAG engine for another LLM? : r/LocalLLaMA – Reddit, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1jt35yu/what_is_your_opinion_on_using_llama_4s_10m/
  38. Meta AI context window: token limits, memory policy, and 2025 rules. – Data Studios, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.datastudios.org/post/meta-ai-context-window-token-limits-memory-policy-and-2025-rules
  39. Benchmark results for Llama 4 Maverick and Scout for DevQualityEval v1.0 – Reddit, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1jv9xxo/benchmark_results_for_llama_4_maverick_and_scout/
  40. GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Scout – LLM Stats, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/gpt-4o-2024-08-06-vs-llama-4-scout
  41. Meta Releases Llama 4 Models, Claims Edge Over AI Competitors – DeepLearning.AI, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://www.deeplearning.ai/the-batch/meta-releases-llama-4-models-claims-edge-over-ai-competitors/
  42. Llama 4: What You Need to Know – Gradient Flow, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://gradientflow.com/llama-4-what-you-need-to-know/
  43. Llama 4 Scout: Pricing, Context Window, Benchmarks, and More, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://llm-stats.com/models/llama-4-scout
  44. GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Scout (Comparative Analysis) – Galaxy.ai Blog, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://blog.galaxy.ai/compare/gpt-4o-vs-llama-4-scout
  45. ggml-org/llama.cpp: LLM inference in C/C++ – GitHub, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp
  46. Llama 4 – 10M Context? Coding? Decent Follow-up? – DEV Community, accessed on December 13, 2025, https://dev.to/maximsaplin/llama-4-10m-context-coding-decent-follow-up-426n