Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

PLD+: Accelerating LLM inference by leveraging Language Model Artifacts

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A tuning-free speculative decoder ranks copy candidates with the model's own hidden states and attention, beating tuned EAGLE on four of five input-guided tasks in greedy decoding.

desk verdict A useful PLD extension whose main comparison is undercut by a draft-budget confound; the ranking idea is plausible but not yet isolated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01447 v1 pith:HMO7UOPQ submitted 2024-12-02 cs.CL cs.AI

Shwetha Somasundaram , Anirudh Phukan , Apoorv Saxena This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords speculativedecodingLLMinferenceaccelerationpromptlookupinput-guidedtaskshiddenstatesattentionheadscodeeditingsummarization
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

This paper tries to establish that large-language-model inference can be accelerated on tasks where the output overlaps with the input—code editing, text editing, summarization, and multi-turn conversation—without any fine-tuning or extra draft model. The proposed method, PLD+, finds every input position where the last generated token appears and picks the source to copy from by ranking those positions with model artifacts the forward pass already computes: cosine similarity between hidden states, or attention from selected induction heads. It then drafts the text following that source and verifies the draft in one parallel pass, so the generation is lossless with respect to standard autoregressive decoding. On five input-guided tasks the authors report that PLD+ outperforms every tuning-free baseline, and in greedy decoding it outperforms the tuned EAGLE on four of them, with up to 5.16x speedup on long text editing with Vicuna-7B. If the claim holds, any LLM can get speculative-decoding speedups out of the box using only its own intermediate states.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the occurrence-ranking rule in Eq. (3). For each candidate copy position j where the current token x_t appears in the input, PLD+ compares the hidden state just before that occurrence, H^(l)_{j-1}, with the hidden state just before the current token, H^(l)_{t-1}, using cosine similarity; the occurrence with the highest similarity becomes the copy source. The attention variant aggregates, over a set of induction heads identified by a prefix-matching and copying probe, the attention paid by token x_{t-1} to each candidate position and picks the max. Both variants produce a draft span of K tokens that the target model verifies in parallel, making the procedure lossless and free of added parameters.

What would settle it

Use a benchmark like code editing where the input contains repeated identical prefixes followed by different continuations, record for each accepted draft span the true copy source, and check whether PLD+(h)'s cosine-similarity ranking picks that source more often than a longest-prefix or random rule; if acceptance length does not rise accordingly, the ranking rule is not the cause of the reported speedup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PLD+'s central claim is that the right span to copy from can be identified semantically rather than by surface heuristics. At decoding step t, PLD+ collects the positions j < t where x_j = x_t and selects j* by maximizing cos_sim(H^(l)_{j-1}, H^(l)_{t-1}) in the hidden-state variant, or by maximizing attention from pre-identified induction heads in the attention variant. The draft is x_{j*+1}, ..., x_{j*+K}, and a single forward pass of the target model verifies the draft tokens, so the output distribution is unchanged. The paper reports that this mechanism outperforms all tuning-free speculative decoding baselines on all five tested input-guided tasks and, in greedy decoding, outperforms the tuning-dependent EAGLE on four tasks (e.g., 5.16x vs 2.85x speedup on long text editing with Vicuna-7B, and 5.37x vs 3.32x on code editing with Vicuna-13B).

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the input position whose preceding hidden state is most cosine-similar to the current hidden state (or is most attended by selected induction heads) is the right source to copy from; the paper supports this with experiments, not a proof.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • PLD+ can be applied to any LLM without training or a separate draft model, since it reads only attention and hidden states that inference already computes.
  • In greedy decoding, PLD+ reports speedups above the tuned EAGLE on code editing, short text editing, and long text editing across Vicuna-7B/13B/33B, with margins up to 2.31x in average speedup.
  • Under sampling (T=1), PLD+ still beats all tuning-free baselines on four of five tasks and trails REST on multi-turn conversation by at most 0.18x.
  • The selected copy position doubles as an attribution signal, pointing to the input span the model copied, with preliminary QuoteSum F1 matching a dedicated attribution method.
  • Because the hyperparameters (K, layer, and top-50 heads) are chosen on a single validation task, the method is straightforward to re-tune for new models or tasks.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to apply the artifact-based ranking to retrieval-augmented generation, where the copied spans come from retrieved passages rather than the prompt; the paper lists RAG as input-guided but does not benchmark it.
  • The hidden-state cosine rule is a testable hypothesis about transformer internals, and measuring its agreement with human-annotated copy sources across models could serve as a cheap interpretability probe.
  • Because PLD+ points to the source of every accepted copied span, it could be developed into a token-level provenance tool without additional inference cost, beyond the preliminary attribution results in the appendix.
  • The same ranking rule could be combined with a learned or retrieval-based candidate generator to push acceptance length further, since the authors show longer drafts benefit from better ranking.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes PLD+, a plug-and-play speculative decoding method for input-guided tasks such as code/text editing, summarization, and multi-turn conversation. Unlike PLD, which ranks candidate input spans by longest prefix match, PLD+ ranks the occurrences of the last generated token using model artifacts: cosine similarity between hidden states (Eq. 3) or aggregated attention scores from induction heads (Eq. 2). The best-ranked span is then used as the draft and verified against the target LLM. Experiments on Vicuna-7B/13B/33B over five tasks (greedy and sampling) report consistent speedups over PLD and other tuning-free baselines, and in greedy decoding, PLD+ sometimes exceeds EAGLE, a tuning-dependent method. A plug-and-play experiment on Mistral-7B and Llama-2-7B/13B is also included.

Significance. If the results are reproducible, PLD+ offers a practically attractive acceleration for a common class of tasks: it requires no draft-model training, no additional GPU memory for a drafter, and can be dropped into any transformer-based LLM. The use of hidden-state and attention-based ranking is an elegant and well-motivated extension of PLD, and the paper's connection to induction heads is a nice touch. The paper reports error bars and ablations over K, layer, and head counts. However, the main comparison is currently confounded by draft-length budget differences between PLD+ and the baselines, and the validation protocol is not clean because the tuning task (summarization) also appears in the main results. These issues make the central quantitative claims not yet fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.4/5.5, Tables 1-2, Figure 4] The comparison between PLD+ and the baselines is not apples-to-apples because PLD+ uses K=70 tuned on summarization while the baselines are run with their default parameters. Section 5.4 says 'We follow the default parameters for all of our speculative decoding baselines,' and Section 5.5 states that the best K for PLD+ is 70 on the summarization validation set. Figure 4 shows that K strongly affects acceptance length. Thus Tables 1 and 2 are consistent with the possibility that much or all of PLD+’s advantage over PLD stems from the larger draft budget rather than from the hidden-state/attention ranking. Moreover, since hyperparameters were selected on the summarization task and summarization is included in the same tables, the summarization row is validation performance, not held-out test performance. Please provide a controlled comparison: either sweep K for PLD and PLD+ and report the full curves, or fix K for all methods to the same value (e.g., 70), and report the performance on a summarization split that was not used for tuning.
  2. [Abstract and Section 6.1, Tables 1-2] The claim that PLD+ 'outperforms all tuning-free approaches' is contradicted by the paper's own tables. In Table 2 (T=1, Vicuna-7B), REST achieves 1.61x on multi-turn conversation while PLD+ (a) achieves 1.56x and PLD+ (h) 1.54x. In Table 1 (T=0, Vicuna-33B), PLD achieves 2.13x on summarization while PLD+ (a) achieves 2.07x and PLD+ (h) 2.09x. Section 6.1 also states that 'in the greedy decoding scenario, PLD+ either exceeds or matches performance of tuning-free baselines in all five tasks,' which is not true for the Vicuna-33B summarization row. Please qualify these claims to the specific tasks and model sizes where the ordering actually holds.
  3. [Abstract, Section 1, Section 4.2.1, Section 5.5] The descriptors 'tuning-free' and 'does not require any additional compute' are misleading as stated. Section 5.5 describes selecting K, layer l, and top-50 attention heads on a validation set, which is hyperparameter tuning even if no model fine-tuning occurs. Furthermore, Eq. 3 requires computing cosine similarities between the current hidden state and hidden states of all candidate positions in every decoding step, and Eq. 2 requires scanning attention maps; these are extra operations not present in PLD’s string matching. Please clarify that 'tuning-free' means 'no draft-model training' and report the measured overhead of the ranking step (e.g., fraction of wall-clock time) to substantiate the 'no additional compute' claim.
  4. [Section 6.2, Table 3] The plug-and-play experiment on Mistral-7B and Llama-2 models does not state how hyperparameters were transferred. The paper tunes l=9 and K=70 on Vicuna-7B, but Mistral-7B and Llama-2 have different layer counts and architectures, and the manuscript does not say whether l was re-tuned, mapped by layer index, or kept at 9. This matters because Figure 5 shows that acceptance length depends strongly on l. Please state the hyperparameter setting used for each model in Table 3, and ideally provide a small layer-sensitivity analysis for at least one non-Vicuna model. Additionally, EAGLE and REST results are absent for Mistral-7B, so the claim that PLD+ 'consistently outperforms all tuning-free baselines' across models is based only on a comparison with PLD in that column.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'autoretrogressive' should be 'autoregressive'.
  2. [Table 3 caption] The caption lists 'L2C-7B' twice for the Llama-2-7B and Llama-2-13B columns; the second should be 'L2C-13B'.
  3. [References] In Section 2, the PLD/LLMA citation is given as '(Saxena, 2023; Yang et al., 2023b)', but the reference list only contains Yang et al. (2023a) as 'Inference with reference'; the 'Predictive pipelined decoding' paper is 2023b. Please align the in-text citation with the correct bibliography entry.
  4. [Section 6.1] The sentence 'PLD+ even surpasses the best-performing fine-tuned approach, EAGLE, by margins ranging from 0.24x to 2.85x' is ambiguous: 2.85x is EAGLE's speedup on long text editing in Table 1, not the margin over EAGLE. Please state the margin explicitly (e.g., 5.16x vs. 2.85x for Vicuna-7B on long text editing).
  5. [General] No code or public evaluation scripts are released. Providing the implementation would substantially improve reproducibility, especially given the need for the controlled K comparison requested above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PLD+ uses an empirically validated artifact-based ranking, with disclosed hyperparameter tuning and non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the draft-selection rule in Eqs. 2 and 3, which ranks candidate input spans by attention maxima or cosine similarity of hidden states. This is a heuristic stated as a hypothesis ('We hypothesize that the artifacts computed during the generation process captures contextual information'), and it is tested against actual LLM acceptance: the draft tokens in Section 4.3 are input spans, but the reported speedup is measured by throughput and acceptance length against the target model's verification, not by the ranking score itself. There is therefore no equation-level equivalence between the method's input (hidden states/attentions) and its output (acceptance/speedup), and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The hyperparameter choices K=70, l=9, and top-50 heads were selected on the summarization task using average acceptance length (Section 5.5) and are disclosed in the table notes ('Hyperparameters were chosen for PLD+ using the summarization task'). This means the summarization rows in Tables 1 and 2 are validation performance rather than held-out test performance, and because Section 5.4 says baselines use default parameters while PLD+ uses K=70, the headline comparison is not budget-controlled (Figure 4 shows sensitivity to K). These are experimental-design limitations, not circularity: the method does not assume the conclusion that it outperforms PLD or EAGLE. The paper's own limitation section (Section 9) confines the claim to input-guided tasks, which is a scope caveat, not circular support. Self-citations to PLD (Saxena 2023; Yang et al. 2023) are used as baselines and as the method being extended, not as the evidence for PLD+'s effectiveness; the attribution experiment in Appendix D cites Phukan et al. (2024), which shares authors, but that appendix is explicitly preliminary and not load-bearing for the main claim. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result is present. The central claim is externally evaluated against Spec-Bench and other benchmarks, so the paper's main derivation is self-contained and not circular.

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

The method relies on a small set of hyperparameters tuned on a validation set (K=70, layer 9, top-50 heads) and on two domain assumptions about input-output overlap and the informativeness of model artifacts. No new entities are introduced; the speedup mechanism is entirely a selection and verification procedure over existing tokens.

free parameters (4)
  • K (number of draft tokens) = 70
    Tuned on the summarization validation set by maximizing average acceptance length (Section 5.5).
  • Layer l for hidden-state ranking = 9
    Tuned on summarization with K=10; best average acceptance length at l=9 (Section 5.5, Figure 5).
  • Top-k induction heads for attention ranking = 50
    Selected from 379 induction heads based on acceptance length on summarization; top 50 gives the best average acceptance length (Table 6).
  • Threshold theta for hidden-state ranking (ablation only) = 0.0
    In Appendix B.3, used for an optional threshold variant; not used in the main results.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Input-guided tasks exhibit substantial lexical overlap between input and output.
    PLD+ exploits this overlap; without it, PLD+ loses its advantage, as the paper notes for multi-turn conversation.
  • domain assumption Model hidden states and attention heads encode information about which input segment the model will copy next.
    Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 hypothesize this; the paper validates it empirically but does not prove it.
  • ad hoc to paper Induction heads identified on a small validation set transfer to other tasks and models.
    The top-50 heads are chosen using the summarization task on Vicuna-7B and applied to other tasks and model sizes without re-tuning.
  • standard math Standard speculative decoding verification preserves output distribution.
    The verification step follows Leviathan et al. (2023) and is assumed to be lossless.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PLD+: Accelerating LLM inference by leveraging Language Model Artifacts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMO7UOPQ

@misc{pith2026241201447,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PLD+: Accelerating LLM inference by leveraging Language Model Artifacts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMO7UOPQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01447}
}
read the original abstract

To reduce the latency associated with autoretrogressive LLM inference, speculative decoding has emerged as a novel decoding paradigm, where future tokens are drafted and verified in parallel. However, the practical deployment of speculative decoding is hindered by its requirements for additional computational resources and fine-tuning, which limits its out-of-the-box usability. To address these challenges, we present PLD+, a suite of novel algorithms developed to accelerate the inference process of LLMs, particularly for input-guided tasks. These tasks, which include code editing, text editing, summarization, etc., often feature outputs with substantial overlap with their inputs-an attribute PLD+ is designed to exploit. PLD+ also leverages the artifacts (attention and hidden states) generated during inference to accelerate inference speed. We test our approach on five input-guided tasks and through extensive experiments we find that PLD+ outperforms all tuning-free approaches. In the greedy setting, it even outperforms the state-of-the-art tuning-dependent approach EAGLE on four of the tasks. (by a margin of upto 2.31 in terms of avg. speedup). Our approach is tuning free, does not require any additional compute and can easily be used for accelerating inference of any LLM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01447 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of PLD+. During the generation of token [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. As shown in the figure, the last generated token is \n. PLD has proposed draft tokens by selecting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. In this figure, we display the results of aggre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of layer l on performance of PLD+ (h) 4 depicts performance of PLD+(h) across different layers. From this figure, we can see that across models PLD+ benefits from using early layers (be￾tween 9 and 13). 8 Conclusion In this work, we propose Prompt Lookup Decod￾i…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Trees from Marginals: Autoregressive drafting with factorized priors

    cs.LG 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Weaver restores conditional dependencies on top-K factorized marginals to build high-acceptance draft trees, plus a fused GDN tree-verify kernel, yielding 4.37× AR speedup and 24.7% over DFlash.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Zachary Ankner, Rishab Parthasarathy, Aniruddha Nrusimha, Christopher Rinard, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and William Brandon. 2024. Hydra: Sequentially-dependent draft heads for medusa decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05109

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Hritik Bansal, Karthik Gopalakrishnan, Saket Dingliwal, Sravan Bodapati, Katrin Kirchhoff, and Dan Roth. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.660 Rethinking the role of scale for in-context learning: An interpretability-based case study at 66 billion scale . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguist...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.660 2023

  3. [3]

    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 preprint arXiv:2401.10774

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. 2023. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.01318

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02057 Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding . Preprint, arXiv:2402.02057

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Jiawei Guo, Ziming Li, Xueling Liu, Kaijing Ma, Tianyu Zheng, Zhouliang Yu, Ding Pan, Yizhi LI, Ruibo Liu, Yue Wang, Shuyue Guo, Xingwei Qu, Xiang Yue, Ge Zhang, Wenhu Chen, and Jie Fu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03543 Codeeditorbench: Evaluating code editing capability of large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2404.03543

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Zhenyu He, Zexuan Zhong, Tianle Cai, Jason D Lee, and Di He. 2023. Rest: Retrieval-based speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08252

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Omid Kashefi, Tazin Afrin, Meghan Dale, Christopher Olshefski, Amanda Godley, Diane Litman, and Rebecca Hwa. 2022. Argrewrite v. 2: an annotated argumentative revisions corpus. Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1--35

    work page 2022

Show all 28 references
  1. [9]

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274--19286. PMLR

    2023

  2. [10]

    Dongfang Li, Zetian Sun, Xinshuo Hu, Zhenyu Liu, Ziyang Chen, Baotian Hu, Aiguo Wu, and Min Zhang. 2023. A survey of large language models attribution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03731

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024. Eagle: Speculative sampling requires rethinking feature uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15077

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Yiheng Liu, Tianle Han, Siyuan Ma, Jiayue Zhang, Yuanyuan Yang, Jiaming Tian, Hao He, Antong Li, Mengshen He, Zhengliang Liu, et al. 2023. Summary of chatgpt-related research and perspective towards the future of large language models. Meta-Radiology, page 100017

    2023

  5. [13]

    Giovanni Monea, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2023. Pass: Parallel speculative sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.13581

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero dos Santos, C a g lar Gulcehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K16-1028 Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence RNN s and beyond . In Proceedings of the 20th SIGNLL Conference on Computational Natural La...

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Catherine Olsson, Nelson Elhage, Neel Nanda, Nicholas Joseph, Nova DasSarma, Tom Henighan, Ben Mann, Amanda Askell, Yuntao Bai, Anna Chen, Tom Conerly, Dawn Drain, Deep Ganguli, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Danny Hernandez, Scott Johnston, Andy Jones, Jackson Kernion, Liane Lovitt, Kam...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Anirudh Phukan, Shwetha Somasundaram, Apoorv Saxena, Koustava Goswami, and Balaji Vasan Srinivasan. 2024. Peering into the mind of language models: An approach for attribution in contextual question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17980

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodol \`a . 2023. Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10427

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Apoorv Saxena. 2023. Prompt lookup decoding https://github.com/apoorvumang/prompt-lookup-decoding/

    2023

  11. [19]

    Tal Schuster, Adam D Lelkes, Haitian Sun, Jai Gupta, Jonathan Berant, William W Cohen, and Donald Metzler. 2023. Semqa: Semi-extractive multi-source question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04886

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    2018

  13. [21]

    Heming Xia, Zhe Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Peiyi Wang, Yongqi Li, Tao Ge, Tianyu Liu, Wenjie Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. Unlocking efficiency in large language model inference: A comprehensive survey of speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07851

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nan Yang, Tao Ge, Liang Wang, Binxing Jiao, Daxin Jiang, Linjun Yang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2023 a . Inference with reference: Lossless acceleration of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04487

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Seongjun Yang, Gibbeum Lee, Jaewoong Cho, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, and Kangwook Lee. 2023 b . Predictive pipelined decoding: A compute-latency trade-off for exact llm decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.05908

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Haopeng Zhang, Hayate Iso, Sairam Gurajada, and Nikita Bhutani. 2023 a . Xatu: A fine-grained instruction-based benchmark for explainable text updates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.11063

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2023 b . Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.08168

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. 2024. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  19. [27]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  20. [28]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.