Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

CopySpec: Accelerating LLMs with Speculative Copy-and-Paste Without Compromising Quality

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read LLM inference speeds up when repeated text in context is copied as a draft and verified, with no quality loss.

desk verdict A clean, honest systems paper whose headline speedups are measured on a self-created redundancy-heavy benchmark; the method works as advertised, but generalization to organic workloads is unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08923 v2 pith:HPKHWPYK submitted 2025-02-13 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Razvan-Gabriel Dumitru , Minglai Yang , Vikas Yadav , Mihai Surdeanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords speculativedecodingLLMinferenceaccelerationcopymechanismmulti-turnconversationtokenrepetitionrollinghashMT-Redundantself-correction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

CopySpec is a decoding-time accelerator that exploits a simple regularity: when the last few tokens an LLM has just generated already occurred earlier in its context, the text that followed that earlier occurrence is likely to follow again. The method keeps a rolling hash of all $\gamma$-token substrings in the context, and when the current suffix matches, it copies the next block from context as a draft, which the target LLM then verifies exactly as in speculative decoding. Its central claim is that this copy-and-paste draft is nearly free, requiring no draft model and no additional GPU memory, and that it becomes more useful as context grows, exactly where ordinary decoding slows down. On their MT-Redundant benchmark of second-turn revision requests, the paper reports up to 3.08x faster second-turn inference, and adding CopySpec on top of speculative decoding yields an average 49% additional speed-up without altering output quality.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\gamma$-token suffix hash map: a rolling hash of every $\gamma$-long token subsequence in the context. The mechanism works by searching this map for the last $\gamma$ generated tokens, extracting the following block of up to $|\text{Scopyspec}|$ tokens from the matched location, and submitting that block to the target LLM for verification. The hash map makes both match lookup and dictionary updates cost $O(\gamma)$, independent of context length, so the overhead stays small and the copy opportunity grows with context size.

What would settle it

Run CopySpec on a corpus of open-ended chit-chat or long-form fiction where responses rarely repeat the prompt verbatim, and measure the fraction of copied tokens and tokens-per-second; if the copy acceptance rate drops to near zero and throughput falls to or below baseline, the repetition assumption fails and the speed-up disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that verbatim repetition in an LLM's context can be turned into a draft source for speculative decoding. CopySpec maintains a hash map of all $\gamma$-token substrings in the accepted context; once the last $\gamma$ generated tokens match an earlier position, it copies the following block, called Scopyspec, treats those tokens as drafts with probability one, and verifies them with the target model. Accepted tokens are kept, rejected tokens are discarded, and key-value states are truncated to the accepted prefix. This copying mechanism is orthogonal to existing speculative decoders, so it can be layered on top of them; the paper's headline results are up to 3.08x speed-up on second-turn MT-Redundant inference, a 49% average boost over vanilla speculative decoding, and consistent gains across five LLMs and five datasets, with quality scores unchanged.

Load-bearing premise

The whole speed-up rests on the assumption that if the last $\gamma$ tokens of the LLM's output already appear in the context, the tokens that followed them there are likely to follow again in the output.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • CopySpec reverses the usual trend of slower inference with growing context: later turns, which have richer histories, benefit more than first turns.
  • The method can be combined with existing speculative decoding frameworks such as vanilla speculative decoding and EAGLE, adding speed-ups beyond what the drafter alone achieves.
  • Standalone CopySpec requires no draft model and no additional GPU memory, so it can be deployed as a lightweight wrapper around an existing LLM.
  • Tasks with high lexical overlap, such as extraction, code revision, and self-correction, see the largest gains, while low-redundancy tasks like MT-Bench show modest but still positive speed-ups.
  • Copying verified text from context does not change the final output distribution compared with greedy decoding, apart from avoiding rejected tokens.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method's value depends on how often real workloads contain exact $\gamma$-token repeats followed by reused text; open-ended dialogue and abstractive writing may show far smaller gains than the benchmark suite suggests.
  • A natural extension is to select among multiple matches using semantic similarity or recency rather than the first match, which the paper lists as future work and which could improve copy quality on noisy contexts.
  • Since the hash map already tracks all $\gamma$-substrings, a testable extension is to report the distribution of match lengths and rejection rates on production chat logs, giving a direct estimate of CopySpec's ceiling on general traffic.
  • The measured 49% boost over speculative decoding is specific to MT-Redundant second turns; a fair deployment question is whether serving systems can detect redundancy on the fly and enable copying only when it pays.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CopySpec, a speculative decoding add-on that detects repeated γ-token suffixes in the model's context and proposes the following block of tokens from that earlier occurrence as a draft. The draft is then verified by the target model in the same way as in speculative decoding, so at temperature 0 the greedy output is unchanged. The method requires no draft model when used standalone and no additional GPU memory. Experiments are reported on five instruction-tuned LLMs across MT-Bench, CNN/DM, GSM8K, HumanEval, and a new MT-Redundant dataset, with secondary experiments on Vicuna with EAGLE, PLD, and SAM-D. The headline results are up to 3.08× speed-up on second-turn MT-Redundant, 2.35× on CNN/DM, 2.66× on GSM8K self-correction, and a 49% additional speed-up over speculative decoding on MT-Redundant, all while preserving greedy output quality. The paper also includes an analysis of the γ hyperparameter and an appendix with detailed per-category tables, prompts, and examples.

Significance. If the empirical speedups hold on real workloads, CopySpec would be a valuable, lightweight addition to LLM inference because it is algorithmically simple, requires no changes to the target model, and its exactness argument for greedy decoding is sound: copied tokens are only proposals that are verified against the target model, so rejected copies cannot change the output distribution. The paper ships public code and a public dataset, reports throughput across several model families, and is unusually transparent in its Limitations section, which concedes that the method assumes repeated content with high lexical overlap. The main risk is not correctness of the algorithm but generality of the empirical speed claim: the largest speedups come from MT-Redundant, a dataset constructed by rewriting second turns to request variations of first-turn answers, and from CNN/DM with an explicitly extractive summarization prompt. On unmodified MT-Bench the speedups are modest. Because the central contribution is an empirical claim about when copying is profitable, the benchmark-specificity of the headline numbers is the load-bearing issue for this manuscript.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.4, Tables 2 and 14–20] The central speedup claims are dominated by MT-Redundant, a dataset constructed by rewriting the second turn of MT-Bench to ask for variations of the first-turn answer (Section 4.4). On unmodified MT-Bench, the average second-turn speedups in Tables 14–18 are only 1.27–1.41×, and the gains over speculative decoding in Tables 19–20 are about 1–11%, not the 49% reported in the abstract. The 2.04× average and 3.08× category-level speedups in Table 2 therefore do not establish that organic multi-turn workloads contain enough lexical repetition for CopySpec to be profitable. This is a load-bearing point because the paper's conclusion generalizes the result to 'results across five LLMs and datasets' rather than restricting it to modified, redundancy-heavy benchmarks.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Appendix H.2] The CNN/DM result is likewise driven by a prompt that explicitly demands extractive summarization: the prompt in Appendix H.2 instructs the model to 'produce an extractive summary' and to 'return only sentences from the original text.' This guarantees near-verbatim reuse and makes the 2.35× speedup unsurprising, but it does not reflect the abstractive summarization setting that the paper's introduction invokes. The same concern applies to the GSM8K self-correction experiments, where the third turn is a direct rewrite of the prior code. The paper should either present these as controlled demonstrations of what CopySpec can do under maximal redundancy or provide evidence on workloads where redundancy is not engineered into the task.
  3. [Appendix C, Section 6.2, Tables 6–8] The EAGLE comparison is not clearly apples-to-apples. Appendix C states that key–value caching in the EAGLE heads was omitted due to implementation challenges, that EAGLE was set to generate 20-token batches, and that the full method 'EAGLE + CopySpec(γ=5)*' increases the speculation window from 10 to 50 tokens. It is not reported whether the EAGLE baseline was run with the same batching and KV-cache configuration; if not, the throughput advantage attributed to CopySpec may partly reflect these implementation differences. This is especially important because Section 6.2 uses the EAGLE+CopySpec numbers to argue that CopySpec 'complements' strong drafters such as EAGLE.
  4. [Tables 2, 9–12, and 3] The per-category MT-Redundant results in Tables 2 and 9–12 are based on at most 10 conversations per category (MT-Bench has 10 questions per category), yet the tables report standard-error-sized values such as 4.62 ± 0.01 and use these to claim speedups as high as 3.08×. No significance tests or confidence intervals are provided, and the reported uncertainty is implausibly small for categorical subsets of this size. The empirical claim would be strengthened by reporting per-sample variability, confidence intervals, or at least a statement of how many generations were pooled to compute each mean and standard deviation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sections 6.1 and 6.2] Sections 6.1 and 6.2 contain overlapping text and inconsistent numbers: the former says '2.4× throughput on Vicuna-v1.3-7B and 3.1× on Vicuna-v1.3-13B,' while the latter says '2.9× on Vicuna-v1.3-7B and 3.6× on Vicuna-v1.3-13B.' Please reconcile these statements and remove the duplicated prose.
  2. [Table 1] The column header 'Both Score' in Table 1 is unexplained; from the caption it appears to be a GPT-4 score for MT-Redundant and MT-Bench, ROUGE-L for CNN/DM, and accuracy for GSM8K and HumanEval, but the header should make this explicit.
  3. [Figure 17 caption] The caption of Figure 17 says 'self-correction in code generation on CNN/DM,' but the example is an extractive summarization task, not code generation or self-correction; the caption should be corrected.
  4. [Section 3.2 and Table 4] The notation '|Scopyspec = 10|' in Table 4 and Section 3.2 should be written as '|Scopyspec| = 10' to distinguish the block-size hyperparameter from the copied token block itself.
  5. [Appendix A] The mathematical typesetting in Appendix A is garbled: the product over 'Q (w,C)∈D' is not defined, and the left-γ skip-gram objective should be written with explicit probability notation. Please revise this passage for clarity.
  6. [Abstract and Section 4.1] The abstract says the method was evaluated on 'seven LLMs,' while the main experiments in Table 1 cover five models and the Vicuna experiments appear only in Appendix C; please clarify the main-table versus appendix model counts in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CopySpec's speedups are direct empirical measurements under a verification-based decoding scheme, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's core mechanism is a verify-then-accept loop: copied tokens are only kept if they match the target model's greedy argmax, and rejected tokens are rolled back via KV-cache truncation (Appendix B, 'Whenever fewer than m ... tokens are accepted, we roll back to the accepted prefix'). This makes the quality-preservation claim true by construction, but it is a verification guarantee, not a circular derivation. The speedups in Tables 1-22 are measured tokens-per-second values on fixed benchmarks, not quantities derived from a model that embeds the target result. The hyperparameters (gamma, |Scopyspec|) are tuned by sweeps, but the reported speedups are not computed from those parameters through an equation that forces the conclusion; they are empirical outcomes of the implemented system. MT-Redundant is introduced by the authors, and the Limitations section concedes that the method 'assumes that the repeated content appears in close proximity and with high lexical overlap.' That is an honest statement of an empirical condition for the method to help, not a definitional equivalence: the paper does not define speedup in terms of MT-Redundant's construction, nor does it fit a parameter to MT-Redundant and then 'predict' the same data. There are no self-citations to prior work by the same authors that carry the argument; comparisons to PLD, SAM-D, and EAGLE use external implementations and reported numbers. The central speed claim may generalize less to organic workloads than to the deliberately redundant benchmark, but that is a correctness/external-validity risk, not a circularity. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations or citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

CopySpec introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Its assumptions are the local-repetition hypothesis, the greedy-decoding operating point, and the representativeness of the authors' MT-Redundant benchmark. The only fitted values are the hyperparameters gamma, copied block size, and draft length, which are tuned on the evaluation data.

free parameters (3)
  • gamma = 3 (default)
    Determines the length of the token suffix used to detect repeats. Chosen empirically as optimal on the evaluation datasets in Section 5.2.
  • block size |Scopyspec| = 10 tokens
    Number of tokens copied per match. Selected as the best value in Table 4, trading overhead against throughput.
  • draft token count for speculative decoding = 3 or 5
    Number of tokens the draft model proposes when copying is not used; varied in the experiments and shown in Tables 3, 5, and appendices.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Local lexical repetition in context predicts future tokens: if the last gamma tokens appear earlier, the following text will likely appear again.
    This is the core engine of CopySpec, stated at the beginning of Section 3. The entire benefit of the method depends on real text containing such repeated gamma-grams with matching continuations.
  • domain assumption Temperature 0 greedy decoding is the operating point; the verification criterion is argmax equality.
    All experiments are run at temperature 0 (Section 4.1), and the acceptance criterion in Appendix B.2 is argmax. The 'no quality loss' claim is only established for greedy decoding, not for sampling temperatures.
  • ad hoc to paper MT-Redundant is representative of real multi-turn revision workloads.
    The authors constructed MT-Redundant by rewriting MT-Bench second turns into variation requests. The paper acknowledges in Limitations that it assumes repeated content in close proximity with high lexical overlap, so the benchmark may not represent all real-world traffic.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of CopySpec: Accelerating LLMs with Speculative Copy-and-Paste Without Compromising Quality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPKHWPYK

@misc{pith2026250208923,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: CopySpec: Accelerating LLMs with Speculative Copy-and-Paste Without Compromising Quality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPKHWPYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08923}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce CopySpec, a simple yet effective technique to tackle the inefficiencies LLMs face when generating responses that closely resemble previous outputs or responses that can be verbatim extracted from context. CopySpec identifies repeated sequences in the model's chat history or context and speculates that the same tokens will follow, enabling seamless copying without compromising output quality and without requiring additional GPU memory. To evaluate the effectiveness of our approach, we conducted experiments using seven LLMs and five datasets: MT-Bench, CNN/DM, GSM8K, HumanEval, and our newly created dataset, MT-Redundant. MT-Redundant, introduced in this paper, transforms the second turn of MT-Bench into a request for variations of the first turn's answer, simulating real-world scenarios where users request modifications to prior responses. Our results demonstrate significant speed-ups: up to 2.35x on CNN/DM, 3.08x on the second turn of select MT-Redundant categories, and 2.66x on the third turn of GSM8K's self-correction tasks. Importantly, we show that CopySpec integrates seamlessly with speculative decoding, yielding an average 49% additional speed-up over speculative decoding for the second turn of MT-Redundant across all eight categories. While LLMs, even with speculative decoding, suffer from slower inference as context size grows, CopySpec leverages larger contexts to accelerate inference, making it a faster complementary solution. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/RazvanDu/CopySpec.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08923 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An example of redundant information, repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The figure illustrates the speculative copying process, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. This figure shows how the copying parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average accepted tokens per copy attempt [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: We use Qwen2.5-7B on both MT-Bench and MT-Redundant dataset. Cosine Similarity and Tokens per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: This figure illustrates the relationship between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: This figure illustrates the relationship between the copying parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples from the Writing category (Slides 81–90). This category focuses on creative and formal writing tasks, such as rephrasing, summarizing, or generating alternative drafts. The second turn typically requests modifications or alternate versions of the initial writt…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples from the Roleplay category (Slides 91–100). Tasks in this category simulate real-world or imaginative scenarios, requiring the model to adjust its responses based on dynamic user requests and context shifts. "[...]" represents truncated output that didn’t fit …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples from the Reasoning category (Slides 101–110). This category evaluates logical and analytical thinking, with prompts asking models to refine prior explanations or provide additional clarifications in the second turn [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples from the Math category (Slides 111–120). This category challenges the model to revise or elaborate mathematical solutions, often clarifying steps or offering alternative solution paths when asked. "[...]" represents truncated output that didn’t fit in the ima…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Examples from the Coding category (Slides 121–130). This category covers programming-related tasks such as debugging, refactoring, or implementing variants of a provided code snippet in response to a user’s request. "[...]" represents truncated output that didn’t fit …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Examples from the Extraction category (Slides 131–140). This category focuses on pulling specific information from the model’s previous response or restructuring it (e.g., lists, bullet points) according to user specifications. "[...]" represents truncated output that…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Examples from the STEM category (Slides 141–150). This category addresses a variety of scientific and technical topics, requiring models to adapt or refine explanations, data, or methodologies in the second turn. "[...]" represents truncated output that didn’t fit in …
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Examples from the Humanities category (Slides 151–160). This category includes topics like literary analysis, historical context, or philosophical discussion, with the second turn often requesting deeper insight or alternate perspectives. "[...]" represents truncated …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: An example of self-correction in code generation on the GSM8K dataset using Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: An example of self-correction in code generation on CNN/DM using Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, demonstrat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Example of code generation on the HumanEval dataset using Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct, demonstrating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (b) Check if s is in D (the dictionary of re- peats)

    Check for a Copy Opportunity: (a) Let s = Xt−γ+1:t be the most recent γ tokens of the accepted sequence X1:t. (b) Check if s is in D (the dictionary of re- peats). • If no match exists, go to Step 3. (c) Otherwise, let p be the first occurrence in D(s) satisfying p + γ − 1 < t− γ + 1 (ensuring no overlap). (d) Form a candidate chunk of length m: eX1:m = X...

    work page

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168

    Training verifiers to solve math word prob- lems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168. Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    (b) Let k = 0

    Speculative Decoding: (a) If no copying occurred, generateδ tokens from the draft model: bX1:δ ∼ pdraft Xt | X1:t . (b) Let k = 0. For i = 1to δ: • Evaluate bxi (from bX1:δ) using ptarget Xt | X1:t+i−1 . • If accepted, increment k. If rejected, break immediately. (c) If k < δ: • Only bx1, . . . ,bxk are accepted, so the final sequence is X1:t+k. • Truncat...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Con- tinue until a stopping criterion (e.g

    Repeat: Increase t by the number of accepted tokens (either k, m, or δ) in this iteration. Con- tinue until a stopping criterion (e.g. end-of- text token) is encountered. Discussion of Truncation: Whenever fewer than m (in copying) or δ (in drafting) tokens are accepted, we roll back to the accepted prefix. The target model’s key-value memory is truncated...

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Task-level variance: Benchmarks that reward verbatim reuse (MT-Redundant, GSM8K) bene- fit most, while abstractive CNN/DM summaries see the smallest absolute gains, highlighting content-overlap as a driver of copying efficiency

    work page

  6. [6]

    SpecHub: Provable Acceleration to Multi-Draft Speculative Decoding

    Spechub: Provable acceleration to multi-draft speculative decoding. Preprint, arXiv:2411.05289. Oriol Vinyals, Meire Fortunato, and Navdeep Jaitly

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    Alex\" for the friend and \

    SAM-D’s crossover: SAM-D starts slower than EAGLE on turn 1 but overtakes it by turn 2, consistent with the O(1) suffix-extension cost claimed in the SAM paper. D Extra Results on MT-Redundant This appendix presents a detailed analysis of the performance improvements achieved by the Copy- Spec approach compared to baseline methods. The tables provide comp...

    work page

  8. [9]

    • If exi passes the acceptance criterion (e.g

    Attempt to Copy: (a) For i = 1to m: • Evaluate exi (from eX1:m) with the tar- get model: ptarget Xt | X1:t+i−1 . • If exi passes the acceptance criterion (e.g. it is the argmax if temperature = 0), set k ← k + 1; otherwise, reject exi and break out of this loop. (b) If k < m: • The final sequence is now X1:t+k, which means only the first k tokens from eX1...

    work page

Show all 18 references
  1. [12]

    EAGLE + CopySpec synergy : Coupling a strong drafter (EAGLE) with span-level copying consistently yields the fastest runs—up to 2.9× speed-up on 7 B and 3.6× on 13 B relative to the plain decoder

  2. [13]

    Speculation window matters: Expanding the draft from 10 to 50 tokens (“*”) adds a further 15–40 % throughput, especially on tasks with high intra-prompt overlap (GSM8K: +188% on 7 B; +264% on 13 B)

  3. [14]

    CopySpec alone is modest : Without a drafter, CopySpec delivers only 40–60 % of the EAGLE- backed gains, showing that copying and multi- token drafting are complementary

  4. [15]

    PLD and SAM-D lag : Prompt lookup (PLD) and SAM-D trail by a wide margin—often not surpassing plain EAGLE—hinting that our tech- nique adds a smaller overhead and thus provides better orthogonality with other speculative de- coding frameworks

  5. [17]

    Late-turn surge: With a 50-token draft, EA- GLE + CopySpec(γ = 5) jumps to 142 TPS on turn 3—3.5× the greedy baseline—showing that long drafts pay off once history is rich in over- laps

  6. [2015]

    In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28, pages 2692–2700

    Pointer networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 28, pages 2692–2700. Seongjun Yang and 1 others. 2023. Predictive pipelined decoding: A compute-latency trade-off for exact llm decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.45678. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chia...

    2023

  7. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 1631– 1640

    Incorporating copying mechanism in sequence- to-sequence learning. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (V olume 1: Long Papers), pages 1631– 1640. Zhang He and Xin Wang. 2023. Speed: Speculative pipelined execution for eff...

    2023 arXiv

  8. [2017]

    CoRR, abs/1704.04368

    Get to the point: Summarization with pointer- generator networks. CoRR, abs/1704.04368. Shwetha Somasundaram, Anirudh Phukan, and Apoorv Saxena. 2024. Pld+: Accelerating llm inference by leveraging language model artifacts. Preprint, arXiv:2412.01447. Ryan Sun, Tianyi Zhou, Xu...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [2021]

    Preprint, arXiv:2107.03374

    Evaluating large language models trained on code. Preprint, arXiv:2107.03374. Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman

    arXiv

  10. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02057

    Break the sequential dependency of llm in- ference using lookahead decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02057. Aaron Grattafiori and 1 others. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. Preprint, arXiv:2407.21783. Jiatao Gu, Zhaopeng Lu, Hang Li, and Victor OK Li

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.