Topic: Capital Markets-Sector & Thematic Research
Report type: Analysis Report on Industry Transformation and Investment Opportunities Driven by Large Language Model Inference Demand (大语言模型推理需求驱动的产业变革与投资机会分析报告)

Based on the current computational principles of large language model inference, the direction of model evolution, and the demand characteristics of downstream customers, please study how the large-scale deployment of model inference may drive the evolution of AI chip architectures (including but not limited to Processing-Near-Memory and 3D memory-logic stacking), changes in chip/server interconnect methods, and adjustments in model architectures. Further analyze which specific industry sectors may be affected by these changes.

Please follow the requirements below:

1. From a technical perspective, conduct a comprehensive study of the full operational pipeline of current large-model inference services, including but not limited to model computation mechanisms, how hardware infrastructure performs the corresponding data processing, and storage/communication mechanisms. Under current trends in inference demand, identify the technical bottlenecks that may arise at each stage and discuss potential future improvement directions. All technical arguments should be supported by rigorously verified data sources to ensure the analysis is accurate, comprehensive, and up to date.

2. For each major technological improvement direction, assess the industrial beneficiaries and adversely affected parties (including both directly impacted stakeholders and important indirectly affected stakeholders). Analyze the channels of impact, transmission speed, and potential competitive dynamics across industries, and based on this, evaluate the likely industrial landscape over the next two to three years.

## Evaluation Criteria for *AI Chip Architecture Evolution and Industry Impact under Large-Scale LLM Inference Deployment*

This framework evaluates deep research reports on large-scale LLM inference deployment. It focuses on whether the report accurately deconstructs the inference pipeline, analyzes the evolution of chips, interconnects, and model architectures, and maps technological changes to industry segments and competitive dynamics over the next 2–3 years. Total: 100 points.

---

### 1. Inference Pipeline and Bottleneck Analysis (30 points)

#### (1) Completeness of inference pipeline decomposition (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Systematically breaks down the inference workflow, covering compute, memory, data movement, interconnect, and scheduling.
- **6–8 points**: Covers major steps, but some components lack depth.
- **0–5 points**: Superficial description without a complete pipeline.

#### (2) Accuracy of bottleneck identification (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Accurately identifies key constraints such as compute, bandwidth, latency, power, memory wall, and interconnect efficiency, and explains root causes.
- **6–8 points**: Identifies main bottlenecks, but lacks depth or clarity on underlying causes.
- **0–5 points**: Bottleneck analysis is vague or incorrect.

#### (3) Rigor of data and technical evidence (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Arguments are supported by reliable, verifiable data; technical descriptions are accurate and up to date.
- **6–8 points**: Some data support, but rigor or timeliness is limited.
- **0–5 points**: Lacks evidence or contains technical inaccuracies.

---

### 2. Evolution of Chips, Interconnects, and Model Architectures (30 points)

#### (1) Chip architecture evolution (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Clearly analyzes directions such as PNM and 3D memory-logic stacking, including drivers, use cases, and constraints.
- **6–8 points**: Covers main directions but lacks mechanism analysis.
- **0–5 points**: Lists concepts without substantive insight.

#### (2) Network and system architecture changes (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Explains changes in chip, server, and cluster interconnects, and their impact on inference efficiency and system cost.
- **6–8 points**: Provides directional analysis, but lacks clear linkage.
- **0–5 points**: Lacks system-level perspective.

#### (3) Model architecture adaptation and co-optimization (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Analyzes model structure, inference strategies, and hardware-software co-optimization, and links them to chip/system evolution.
- **6–8 points**: Some analysis, but weak integration logic.
- **0–5 points**: Ignores model-side adjustments or remains superficial.

---

### 3. Industry Impact and Competitive Dynamics (25 points)

#### (1) Identification of beneficiaries and impacted players (10 points)
- **9–10 points**: Accurately identifies direct and indirect beneficiaries and impacted segments, with clear logic.
- **6–8 points**: Identifies key players, but coverage is incomplete.
- **0–5 points**: Weak or generic industry mapping.

#### (2) Transmission mechanisms and impact pathways (8 points)
- **7–8 points**: Clearly explains how technological changes propagate along the value chain, including timing, pace, constraints, and key quantitative drivers.
- **4–6 points**: Provides directional insight, but lacks systematic linkage.
- **0–3 points**: Lacks clear transmission analysis.

#### (3) 2–3 year outlook on industry structure (7 points)
- **6–7 points**: Provides well-supported views on future competition based on supply, demand, technology maturity, and industry dynamics.
- **3–5 points**: Offers directional views but lacks support.
- **0–2 points**: Conclusions are vague.

---

### 4. Report Quality and Strategic Implications (15 points)

#### (1) Structure and professionalism (5 points)
- **5 points**: Clear structure with a coherent tech–industry–competition narrative.
- **3–4 points**: Generally structured but average logic.
- **0–2 points**: Poor structure.

#### (2) Actionability of conclusions (6 points)
- **5–6 points**: Provides clear industry insights, key directions, and tracking indicators.
- **3–4 points**: Clear conclusions but limited actionability.
- **0–2 points**: Vague conclusions.

#### (3) Risk identification (4 points)
- **4 points**: Covers key risks such as slower tech adoption, weak demand realization, cost constraints, supply chain bottlenecks, and technology shifts.
- **2–3 points**: Lists major risks but lacks depth.
- **0–1 point**: Missing risk disclosure.