Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

LibraSpec: Dynamic Diffusion-Based Speculative Decoding via Marginal-Gain-Driven Optimization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For diffusion-based speculative decoding, a marginal-gain criterion finds the speedup-optimal draft length, and iterating it provably converges to the optimum.

desk verdict LibraSpec's empirical story is strong and the framing is right, but the convergence claims are proven for an idealized model, not the algorithm that actually runs. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08721 v1 pith:Y3FTW4ZR submitted 2026-08-09 cs.CL cs.AI

Zexun Lin , Yuan Feng , Junlin Lv , Kevin S. Zhou , Xike Xie This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords speculativedecodingdiffusion-baseddraftersdynamiclengthexpected-speedupoptimizationmarginalgaincriterionunimodalspeedupconfidencecalibrationinferenceacceleration
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

The paper claims that for diffusion-based speculative decoding, the right way to choose how many draft tokens to verify is to optimize expected speedup directly, not to predict how many tokens will be accepted. It derives a marginal criterion: extend the speculative sequence only while the acceptance gain of the appended segment, per unit of verification cost, exceeds the average gain of the current sequence. From this criterion it builds LibraSpec, a training-free algorithm that uses the drafter's confidence scores to iteratively adjust the speculative length at each decoding round. The paper proves that under idealized conditions these adjustments converge in finitely many steps to a globally speedup-optimal length, and reports consistent end-to-end speedup gains, 0.5 to 1.5 times over existing diffusion-based methods and up to 8.49 times over autoregressive decoding, across six target models, three drafters, and greedy and sampling decoding.

What carries the argument

The working object is a ratio comparison. With prefix acceptance, drafting positions $i$ through $d'$ contribute expected accepted tokens $\mathbb{E}[\tau_{i:d'}] = \sum_{j=i}^{d'} \prod_{k=i}^{j} p_k$ at verification cost $c(d'-i)$, where $p_k$ is the acceptance probability at position $k$ and $c$ the per-position verification cost. An extension $d \to d'$ improves expected speedup iff $\mathbb{E}[\tau_{d:d'}]/T_{d:d'}^{\mathrm{verify}} > \mathbb{E}[\tau_d]/T_d^{\mathrm{verify}}$; truncation reverses the inequality. LibraSpec turns this into the computable bound $d' \le \epsilon_i = \lfloor \alpha \sum_{j=i}^{d'} \prod_{k=i}^{j} q_k + i \rfloor$, using drafter confidence $q_k$ in place of $p_k$ and one fitted constant $\alpha$ that absorbs verification time, accepted count, and per-position cost. The algorithm then takes the minimum of the position-wise bounds, and the convergence proof exploits the unimodality of expected speedup as a function of length.

What would settle it

On a real drafter-target pair, log the drafter confidence $q_i$ and the empirical acceptance frequency $\hat{p}_i$ at each position. Run LibraSpec with $q_i$, then rerun the same decoding rounds with $\hat{p}_i$ substituted into the criterion; whenever the two runs choose different lengths, measure end-to-end latency. A single round in which the $q$-based choice is slower than the $\hat{p}$-based choice, while the theory's other conditions hold, would falsify the practical claim that the marginal criterion transfers without calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that dynamic speculative-length selection for diffusion-based drafters should be treated as expected-speedup optimization rather than accepted-length prediction. Because a diffusion drafter produces a whole candidate block in parallel at low cost, the scarce resource is target-model verification, so the question is how many already-generated tokens are worth verifying. The paper proves that an adjustment from length $d$ to $d'$ improves expected speedup exactly when the marginal acceptance gain of the added or removed segment, per unit of verification cost, beats the current average acceptance gain per unit of cost. It shows the expected speedup is unimodal in the length, and therefore iterating such beneficial adjustments reaches a globally optimal length interval in finitely many steps. LibraSpec implements this online using drafter confidence scores in place of the unknown acceptance probabilities, and the experiments show consistent further speedups of 0.5 to 1.5 times over FastdLLM, DFlash, and DDTree, up to 8.49 times over autoregressive decoding.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rides on the drafter's confidence scores tracking the target model's true acceptance probabilities; the paper itself notes this calibration gradually fails for DFlash beyond roughly 22 to 24 tokens, which is why the maximum length is capped there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For diffusion drafters, methods that predict the expected accepted length are optimizing the wrong quantity; the decision should compare marginal acceptance gain against marginal verification cost.
  • Repeatedly applying the marginal criterion is guaranteed to reach a speedup-optimal speculative length after finitely many adjustments whenever the underlying speedup model holds.
  • LibraSpec can be added to existing diffusion-based speculative decoders without retraining, and the reported gains, 0.5 to 1.5 times over three baselines and up to 8.49 times over autoregressive decoding, hold under both greedy and sampling decoding on math, code, and chat benchmarks.
  • In the reported case studies the adaptive schedule tracks the oracle-optimal length with a mean absolute deviation of 2.78 tokens, versus 9.48 for a static schedule, so the online signal carries most of the information the oracle uses.
  • Because $\alpha$ controls aggressiveness, the same algorithm can be tuned per drafter; DFlash and DDTree, whose drafts are stronger, prefer a larger $\alpha$ than FastdLLM.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: a natural extension the paper does not pursue is to make $\alpha$ adaptive online, using each round's verification outcome as feedback, so the marginal criterion degrades gracefully when the drafter's calibration drifts.
  • Editorial inference: the same marginal-gain test could be applied inside a draft tree, deciding how many alternative branches at each depth are worth verifying rather than only how many sequential tokens.
  • Editorial inference: if calibration is the bottleneck, temperature scaling or per-position calibration of drafter confidence against empirical acceptance rates should push achievable speedup closer to the oracle; this is testable with the paper's reported setup.
  • Editorial inference: the criterion should in principle transfer to autoregressive drafters once drafting cost is folded into the cost term, but the paper's derivation explicitly treats draft cost as negligible, so that transfer is untested.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes LibraSpec, a training-free dynamic speculative-length selection method for diffusion-based drafters. It reframes length selection as expected-speedup optimization, derives a marginal criterion that extends the draft only when the appended segment's acceptance gain per verification cost exceeds the current average, proves unimodality and finite convergence to the optimal length interval under an idealized model, and approximates the unknown acceptance probabilities with drafter confidence scores, collapsing runtime quantities into a single trade-off hyperparameter alpha. Experiments on Qwen2.5/Qwen3 targets with FastdLLM, DFlash, and DDTree report consistent additional speedups over static and heuristic baselines under both greedy and sampling decoding.

Significance. The practical idea is timely and useful: diffusion-based drafters change the cost structure, and the paper gives a clean formulation (marginal benefit vs. verification cost) that is conceptually appealing and easy to plug into existing systems. The experimental coverage is broad: six target models, three draft methods, four benchmarks, and both decoding modes, with the reported gains consistently positive. If the theoretical guarantee were valid for the deployed algorithm, this would be a solid contribution. As written, however, the central convergence theorem applies to a different update rule than the one executed in Algorithm 1, and the necessary/sufficient characterization is only established for a non-derived 'strengthened' criterion. The empirical results are suggestive but cannot substitute for the missing analysis of the actual algorithm.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4 and Algorithm 1; Theorems 3.3-3.6] The theory analyzes epsilon_i = max{d' | d' < alpha * sum_{j=i}^{d'} prod_{k=i}^j p_k + i}, where the sum extends to the candidate length d'. Algorithm 1, line 4, computes epsilon_i = floor(alpha * sum_{j=i}^{d} prod_{k=i}^j q_k + i), using the current length d and the draft confidence q_k. Even under Assumption 3.7 with q=p and with alpha set to the theoretical ratio, the two objects are not equal: the inequality is evaluated at the current length rather than at the candidate length, so the update chosen by the algorithm need not satisfy the theorem's condition. Section 3.4 acknowledges this as a 'practical compromise,' but no error bound or monotonicity argument is given for the actual update. The abstract's claim that LibraSpec 'monotonically converges toward the optimal speculative length' is therefore unsupported by the proofs as written.
  2. [Theorems 3.3, 3.4 and Section 3.3; Appendix A.3] The paper claims necessary and sufficient conditions for a single beneficial adjustment, but Theorem 3.3 proves necessity only under a 'strengthened position-wise criterion' that is introduced without justification as a requirement of the original Definition 3.1. Theorem 3.4's sufficiency proof in Appendix A.3 verifies only the i=d instance and does not handle the d'<d (truncation/rollback) case, even though Algorithm 1 explicitly performs rollback. The 'maximum admissible adjustment' characterization is therefore not established for the problem as defined.
  3. [Section 3.4, alpha definition] The text defines alpha = T_i^{verify}/(tau_i c). Under the paper's own linear verification cost model T_i^{verify}=c*i, this equals i/tau_i, which depends on position i. Algorithm 1 nevertheless uses a single global alpha per drafter, and no argument shows that a constant approximates the position-dependent ratio well enough to preserve the marginal criterion. Replacing p_k by q_k under Assumption 3.7 is also unquantified; Section 4.6 itself reports that q-p calibration deteriorates beyond roughly 22-24 tokens for DFlash, so the operating regime in which the theory is claimed to apply is not established even within d_max.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (1)] The symbol L_target^d is used for the 'standard per-token latency' but indexed by d; the index is unnecessary and confuses with block-dependent quantities. Use L_target throughout.
  2. [Theorem 3.5 and Appendix A.4] The proof asserts the existence of a threshold d at which the product drops below c*E[tau_d]/T_d, but the key monotonicity fact (that E[tau_d]/d is nonincreasing in d because it is the prefix average of nonincreasing products) is not stated. This is fixable, but as written the 'immediately implies' step skips the load-bearing argument for unimodality.
  3. [Abstract and Section 4.2] The phrase 'further 0.5~1.5x improvement' is ambiguous: it could mean a multiplicative speedup ratio or an additive speedup difference. The tables report eta values; please state the comparison metric explicitly.
  4. [Tables 1-2] The tables report point estimates without error bars or multiple seeds. Given the small benchmark subsets (128 examples for MATH-500 and GSM8K), please state whether the improvements are stable across runs or provide variance information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the marginal criterion is a derived algebraic equivalence, and the algorithm's approximations are disclosed rather than smuggled in.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained under its stated assumptions. Definition 3.1 defines a beneficial adjustment by E[η_d']>E[η_d]; Theorem 3.2 and Appendix A.1 transform this definition, using the speedup model of Eq. (2) and the ratio-comparison identity, into the equivalent marginal-benefit comparison (Eq. 4). This is a legitimate algebraic equivalence, not a circular use of the conclusion: the paper does not define 'beneficial' in terms of the marginal criterion, and the theorem is proved from the definition rather than assumed. Theorems 3.3 and 3.4 add the substantive position-wise prefix-acceptance model to obtain a computable bound, and Theorem 3.5/3.6 establish unimodality and finite convergence from monotonicity of expected speedup. The transition to Algorithm 1 is explicitly approximate: Section 3.4 replaces p_i by q_i under Assumption 3.7 and states 'as a practical compromise, we compute the adjustment criterion using only the confidence scores of the draft tokens generated so far,' and Section 4.6 notes calibration deterioration for DFlash beyond d_max. This is a disclosed theory-practice gap, not a circular step. The hyperparameter α is tuned in Section 4.5 on the same benchmarks used for the headline speedups; that is a test-set selection concern that could inflate the reported gains, but α is not a renamed prediction and the measured speedups are not forced to equal any fitted quantity by construction. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no imported uniqueness theorems. Hence no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The practical instantiation of the derivation rests on two fitted constants (alpha and d_max), a calibration assumption the authors themselves admit degrades with horizon (Section 4.6), and an idealized cost model (linear per-position verification cost, negligible drafting cost, Eq. 2). No new physical or architectural entities are introduced; the draft budget B in Algorithm 1 is a bookkeeping device, and the 'strengthened position-wise criterion' is an added modeling requirement that the theorems depend on but the speedup objective does not imply.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (trade-off coefficient) = 2.0 (FastdLLM), 2.2 (DFlash and DDTree)
    Absorbs T_verify_i / (tau_i c) in the marginal criterion. Chosen by sweeping 1.8 to 2.2 and picking the best average speedup on the evaluation benchmarks (Table 4, Section 4.5). A fitted constant, not derived.
  • d_max (maximum speculative length) = 60 for FastdLLM, 24 for DFlash/DDTree
    Selected from the sensitivity analysis in Section 4.6 on the same benchmarks; the paper says DFlash calibration degrades beyond roughly 22 to 24 tokens. Caps the search space and the attainable optimum.
  • initial block length n = 10 (FastdLLM), 16 (DFlash/DDTree)
    Inherited from the base drafters' official configurations (Appendix B.2). Not a contribution of this paper, but it is the starting point of the iterative adjustment.
  • rollback cap (at most one correction) = 1
    Engineering choice to suppress oscillation between length adjustment and probability estimation (Section 3.4). Not derived from the theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Accepted tokens form a consecutive prefix of the draft; E[tau_d] = sum over prefixes of products of acceptance probabilities.
    Used throughout the derivations (Eqs. 13 and 14). Standard in speculative decoding and valid for lossless verification schemes.
  • domain assumption Drafting cost is negligible relative to verification (Eq. 2: eta approx tau L / T_verify).
    The entire optimization target drops drafting time. Justified by the latency breakdown in Figure 3 for diffusion drafters; holds only in this regime.
  • domain assumption Constant per-position verification cost c, so T_verify_{i:d'} = c(d'-i).
    Makes the marginal cost linear in length (Eq. 15). Reasonable for parallel verification but not exact; block verification cost is not strictly additive.
  • domain assumption Drafter confidence q_i is well calibrated to target acceptance probability p_i (Assumption 3.7).
    The bridge from theory to Algorithm 1: q replaces p in every epsilon_i. The authors state in Section 4.6 that calibration deteriorates with horizon, so this assumption fails where the paper itself knows it fails, and d_max is the patch.
  • standard math The expected-speedup function is unimodal in the speculative length (Theorem 3.5).
    I verified this holds when E[tau_{d+1}] = E[tau_d] + prod p and the cost is linear. The paper's proof asserts the threshold instead of proving persistence of the inequality, but the claim is true.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LibraSpec: Dynamic Diffusion-Based Speculative Decoding via Marginal-Gain-Driven Optimization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y3FTW4ZR

@misc{pith2026260808721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LibraSpec: Dynamic Diffusion-Based Speculative Decoding via Marginal-Gain-Driven Optimization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y3FTW4ZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08721}
}
abstract

Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference by drafting multiple tokens for parallel verification, with efficiency critically determined by the speculative length selected at each decoding round. Existing dynamic speculation methods select the speculation length by estimating how many tokens will be accepted, which is reasonable for autoregressive drafters that generates tokens sequentially. The recent wave of diffusion-based drafters, however, generates candidate blocks in parallel at substantially lower drafting cost, shifting the key question from how many tokens to generate to how many generated tokens are worth verifying. We therefore reformulate dynamic speculative-length selection as expected-speedup optimization and derive a marginal criterion that extends the speculative sequence only when its acceptance gain outweighs the additional verification cost. Building on this criterion, we develop \textit{LibraSpec}, a training-free and plug-and-play algorithm that iteratively determines the speculative length using drafter confidence scores. Theoretically, we prove that LibraSpec monotonically converges toward the optimal speculative length. Experiments across six target models, three diffusion-based speculative decoding methods, and math, coding, and chat benchmarks show consistent improvements under both greedy and sampling settings, achieving a further $0.5\sim1.5\times$ improvement over baselines and up to $8.49\times$ speedup over autoregressive decoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Speedup gains achieved by LibraSpec when integrated to different methods (see experiments for other benchmarks). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Static speculative length vs. LibraSpec vs. optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Latency breakdown at a speculative length of 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effect of Maximum Speculative Length on the Speedup of LibraSpec, Compared with Static Speculative Length. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case Study of Dynamic Speculative Length Adjust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, Jason D. Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao. 2024. Medusa: Simple LLM Inference Acceleration Framework with Multiple Decoding Heads. arXiv:2401.10774 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2401.10774

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Jian Chen, Yesheng Liang, and Zhijian Liu. 2026. DFlash: Block Diffusion for Flash Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2602.06036 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06036

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, et al . 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv:2107.03374 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03374

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Jacob K Christopher, Brian R Bartoldson, Tal Ben-Nun, Michael Cardei, Bhavya Kailkhura, and Ferdinando Fioretto. 2025. Speculative Diffusion Decoding: Ac- celerating Language Generation through Diffusion. arXiv:2408.05636 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05636

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    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. 2021. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv:2110.14168 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.14168

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Yunlong Hou, Fengzhuo Zhang, Cunxiao Du, Xuan Zhang, Jiachun Pan, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Vincent Y. F. Tan, and Zhuoran Yang. 2025. BanditSpec: Adaptive Speculative Decoding via Bandit Algorithms. arXiv:2505.15141 [cs.LG] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.15141

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Lanxiang Hu, Zhaoxiang Feng, Yulun Wu, Haoran Yuan, Yujie Zhao, Yu-Yang Qian, Bojun Wang, Peng Zhao, Daxin Jiang, Yibo Zhu, Tajana Rosing, and Hao Zhang. 2026. JetSpec: Breaking the Scaling Ceiling of Speculative Decoding with Parallel Tree Drafting. arXiv:2606.18394 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18394

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Kaixuan Huang, Xudong Guo, and Mengdi Wang. 2025. SpecDec++: Boosting Speculative Decoding via Adaptive Candidate Lengths. arXiv:2405.19715 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19715

    arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Sungkyun Kim, Jaemin Kim, Dogyung Yoon, Jiho Shin, Junyeol Lee, and Jiwon Seo

  2. [10]

    Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention. arXiv:2309.06180 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.06180

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Olivier Lacombe and Maarten Grootendorst. 2026. Accelerating Gemma 4: Faster Inference with Multi-Token Prediction Drafters. https://blog.google/innovation- and-ai/technology/developers-tools/multi-token-prediction-gemma-4/. Google AI Blog

    2026

  4. [12]

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast Inference from Transformers via Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2211.17192 [cs.LG] https://arxiv. org/abs/2211.17192

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Guanghao Li, Zhihui Fu, Min Fang, Qibin Zhao, Ming Tang, Chun Yuan, and Jun Wang. 2025. DiffuSpec: Unlocking Diffusion Language Models for Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2510.02358 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02358

    2025

  6. [14]

    Shenggui Li, Chao Wang, Yikai Zhu, Yubo Wang, Fan Yin, Shuai Shi, Yefei Chen, Xiaomin Dong, Qiaoling Chen, Jin Pan, Ji Li, Laixin Xie, Yineng Zhang, Lei Yu, Yonggang Wen, Ivor Tsang, and Tianwei Zhang. 2026. SpecForge: A Flexi- ble and Efficient Open-Source Training Framework ...

    2026

  7. [15]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024. EAGLE- 2: Faster Inference of Language Models with Dynamic Draft Trees. arXiv:2406.16858 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.16858

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2025. EAGLE-3: Scaling up Inference Acceleration of Large Language Models via Training-Time Test. arXiv:2503.01840 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01840

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2025. EA- GLE: Speculative Sampling Requires Rethinking Feature Uncertainty. arXiv:2401.15077 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15077

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2023. Let’s Verify Step by Step. arXiv:2305.20050 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Fuliang Liu, Xue Li, Ketai Zhao, Yinxi Gao, Ziyan Zhou, Zhonghui Zhang, Zhibin Wang, Wanchun Dou, Sheng Zhong, and Chen Tian. 2026. DART: Diffusion- Inspired Speculative Decoding for Fast LLM Inference. arXiv:2601.19278 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19278

    2026

  12. [20]

    Jonathan Mamou, Oren Pereg, Daniel Korat, Moshe Berchansky, Nadav Timor, Moshe Wasserblat, and Roy Schwartz. 2024. Dynamic Speculation Lookahead Accelerates Speculative Decoding of Large Language Models. arXiv:2405.04304 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04304

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Müller, and Lukas Cavigelli

    Michele Marzollo, Jiawei Zhuang, Niklas Roemer, Niklas Zwingenberger, Lorenz K. Müller, and Lukas Cavigelli. 2026. SSSD: Simply-Scalable Specula- tive Decoding. arXiv:2411.05894 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05894

    2026 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Jiayi Pan, Jiaming Xu, Yongkang Zhou, and Guohao Dai. 2025. SpecDiff: Acceler- ating Diffusion Model Inference with Self-Speculation. arXiv:2509.13848 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.13848

    2025

  15. [23]

    Lehan Pan, Ziyang Tao, Ruoyu Pang, Xiao Wang, Jianjun Zhao, and Yanyong Zhang. 2026. Making Every Verified Token Count: Adaptive Verification for MoE Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2605.00342 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.00342

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Rui Pan, Zhuofu Chen, Hongyi Liu, Arvind Krishnamurthy, and Ravi Netravali

  17. [25]

    Liran Ringel and Yaniv Romano. 2026. Accelerating Speculative Decoding with Block Diffusion Draft Trees. arXiv:2604.12989 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2604. 12989

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    arXiv:2512.20573 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20573

    Fail Fast, Win Big: Rethinking the Drafting Strategy in Speculative Decoding via Diffusion LLMs. arXiv:2512.20573 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.20573

  19. [27]

    Christopher, Thomas Hartvigsen, and Ferdinando Fioretto

    Jameson Sandler, Jacob K. Christopher, Thomas Hartvigsen, and Ferdinando Fioretto. 2025. SpecDiff-2: Scaling Diffusion Drafter Alignment For Faster Specu- lative Decoding. arXiv:2511.00606 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00606

    2025

  20. [28]

    Mohammad Samragh, Arnav Kundu, David Harrison, Kumari Nishu, Devang Naik, Minsik Cho, and Mehrdad Farajtabar. 2025. Your LLM Knows the Future: Uncovering Its Multi-Token Prediction Potential. arXiv:2507.11851 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.11851

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Efficient Transformers: A Survey. arXiv:2009.06732 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2009. 06732

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, Adi Ganesh, Ahmed El-Kishky, et al. 2026. OpenAI GPT-5 System Card. arXiv:2601.03267 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03267

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen, Xinyu Zhu, and Yu Meng. 2025. AdaDecode: Acceler- ating LLM Decoding with Adaptive Layer Parallelism. arXiv:2506.03700 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03700

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Zhuoyu Wang, Junnan Huang, and Xinyu Chen. 2026. TAPS: Target- Aware Prefix Tree Selection for Diffusion-Drafted Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2606.00487 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00487

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, et al. 2025. Qwen3 Technical Report. arXiv:2505.09388 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2505.09388

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Chengyue Wu, Hao Zhang, Shuchen Xue, Shizhe Diao, Yonggan Fu, Zhijian Liu, Pavlo Molchanov, Ping Luo, Song Han, and Enze Xie. 2025. Fast-dLLM v2: Efficient Block-Diffusion LLM. arXiv:2509.26328 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.26328

    2025

  27. [35]

    Penghui Yang, Cunxiao Du, Fengzhuo Zhang, Haonan Wang, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, and Bo An. 2026. LongSpec: Long-Context Lossless Speculative Decoding with Efficient Drafting and Verification. arXiv:2502.17421 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2502.17421

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, et al. 2025. Qwen2.5 Technical Report. arXiv:2412.15115 [cs.CL] https://arxiv. org/abs/2412.15115 Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Zexun Lin, Yuan Feng, Junlin Lv, Kevin S. Zhou, and Xike Xie

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hao Zhang, Yiming Hu, Yong Wang, Mingqiao Mo, Xin Xiao, and Xiangxiang Chu. 2026. BlockPilot: Instance-Adaptive Policy Learning for Diffusion-based Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2606.31315 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.31315

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Hossein Entezari Zarch, Lei Gao, Chaoyi Jiang, and Murali Annavaram. 2025. DEL: Context-Aware Dynamic Exit Layer for Efficient Self-Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2504.05598 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.05598

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Yu, Zheng Li, Yifan Song, Dawei Zhu, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Sujian Li

    Jiebin Zhang, Zhenghan Yu, Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Eugene J. Yu, Zheng Li, Yifan Song, Dawei Zhu, Xingxing Zhang, Furu Wei, and Sujian Li. 2026. Learn- ing to Draft: Adaptive Speculative Decoding with Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2603.01639 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01639

    2026

  32. [40]

    Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2024. Draft & Verify: Lossless Large Language Model Acceleration via Self-Speculative Decoding. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume ...

    2024 doi

  33. [42]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. arXiv:2306.05685 [cs.CL] https://ar...

    2023 arXiv

  34. [2026]

    arXiv:2509.24328 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24328

    Speculative Verification: Exploiting Information Gain to Refine Speculative Decoding. arXiv:2509.24328 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24328

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.