Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Alignment-Augmented Speculative Decoding with Alignment Sampling and Conditional Verification

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AASD, a training-free speculative decoding algorithm, lifts LLaMA3.1 average generation scores by 3.3 points over greedy sampling while speeding decoding by up to 2.23x.

desk verdict The alignment-sampling idea is genuinely new, but Eq. (5) makes the claimed adaptive verification almost always vacuous, so the central accuracy claim is not supported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13204 v2 pith:VEL7M7ZY submitted 2025-05-19 cs.CL

Jikai Wang , Zhenxu Tian , Juntao Li , Qingrong Xia , Xinyu Duan , Zhefeng Wang , Baoxing Huai , Min Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords speculativedecodingtraining-freedraftingalignmentsamplingconditionalverificationdraft-targetentropy-basedthresholdretrieval-basedLLMinferenceacceleration
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

Speculative decoding normally accelerates generation only when draft tokens match the target model's own distribution, and existing methods train extra modules to force that match. This paper argues that when drafts are retrieved from the prompt itself, a training-free algorithm can improve both speed and accuracy by attacking alignment from both sides. Alignment sampling adds alternative high-probability tokens from the prefill distribution to poorly aligned draft positions, and conditional verification relaxes or tightens the acceptance threshold per token according to the entropy of its verification distribution. On eight long-context datasets, AASD raises LLaMA3.1-8B-Instruct's average score from 44.69 to 47.98 over greedy sampling while reaching a mean acceptance length of 2.39 and a 2.23x decoding speedup. If the result holds, inference acceleration need not cost quality, and prompt context can serve as a free, task-adaptive draft source.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. Alignment sampling starts from a sliding-window draft pool built from the prompt, retrieves n-grams by the longest matching key, and then, for positions where the retrieved token is not top-ranked in the model's prefill distribution, adds the next most probable tokens as sibling branches; the resulting draft tree is verified in one parallel forward pass. Conditional verification replaces strict or fixed-threshold acceptance with per-token thresholds $\delta=\min(-\alpha H+\beta,\Delta)$, where $H$ is the entropy of the target model's verification distribution, $\Delta$ is its maximum probability, and $\alpha,\beta$ are fixed hyperparameters; the $\Delta$ cap guarantees the most probable token always passes. The design lets the model copy useful text directly from its input context while still refusing low-confidence borrowings.

What would settle it

Take a task where the prompt contains fluent but misleading text that resembles the expected answer, run AASD with conditional verification enabled and disabled, and compare F1 or ROUGE-L; if enabling conditional verification raises the acceptance of prompt-fragment tokens while lowering the score below greedy, the entropy-based threshold is accepting the wrong fragments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that poor draft-target alignment, not draft quality, is what limits retrieval-based speculative decoding, and that AASD fixes this without training. First, alignment sampling uses the output distribution the target model already computed during prefilling: at positions where the retrieved n-gram disagrees with the model's top choices, the algorithm appends additional high-probability tokens as extra branches of the draft tree, so the draft becomes more likely to contain the token the target model would emit. Second, conditional verification makes the target model more accommodating toward high-quality but non-aligned drafts: a draft token is accepted when its probability under the target model is at least $\delta=\min(-\alpha H+\beta,\Delta)$, where $H$ is the entropy of the verification distribution and $\Delta$ the highest token probability, so confident predictions use relaxed thresholds and uncertain ones use strict thresholds. With LLaMA3.1-8B-Instruct, this combination improves the average F1, ROUGE-L, and Edit-Sim score across eight datasets from 44.69 under greedy sampling to 47.98, and it surpasses REST and PLD in mean acceptance length and throughput, reaching a 2.23x speedup on LCC code completion.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy gain rests on the heuristic that lower model uncertainty should permit more permissive acceptance thresholds, with a single formula applied across all tasks; if that relation fails on a task, borrowed prompt fragments will degrade generation quality instead of improving it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AASD can be dropped onto existing autoregressive LLMs without retraining, extra parameters, or an external draft model, so the acceleration transfers when model weights change.
  • Retrieval from the prompt alone can beat both autoregressive greedy decoding and database-based retrieval such as REST on acceptance length, so the input context is a sufficient draft source for long-context generation.
  • Accuracy and speed need not trade off: accepting high-quality non-aligned fragments can improve task scores while raising throughput.
  • Entropy-based adaptive thresholds outperform fixed thresholds and top-k verification in the reported ablations, which implies acceptance decisions should depend on the shape of the verification distribution.
  • Because the decoder is encouraged to copy context fragments, the paper's limitations state that deployment must filter harmful or untrusted prompt content to avoid propagating it into responses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves alignment sampling for database-driven drafters such as REST as future work; a testable extension is to precompute top-token distributions for the draft pool and apply AASD unchanged there.
  • Because a single fixed pair of $\alpha,\beta$ is used across all eight datasets, the 3.3-point average likely understates what a per-task or per-model calibration of the entropy threshold could achieve.
  • The reported batch-size trend suggests the method's practical edge is largest for interactive, low-batch serving rather than high-throughput offline batches.
  • The safety passage implies AASD effectively raises the model's willingness to trust context, so a safety-aligned variant that filters prompt fragments before acceptance is a natural next direction.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Alignment-Augmented Speculative Decoding (AASD), a training-free speculative decoding method that retrieves n-gram drafts from the input prompt, augments them via alignment sampling from the prefilling distribution, and verifies them with an entropy-based adaptive probability threshold. The authors claim that AASD improves generation accuracy over greedy sampling (average score 44.69 to 47.98 on LLaMA3.1-8B-Instruct across eight datasets) while speeding up decoding by up to 2.23x, and that it outperforms REST and PLD in mean acceptance length and throughput. The method is evaluated on QA, summarization, and code completion tasks with two instruction-tuned models, with ablations showing both alignment sampling and conditional verification contribute to efficiency and accuracy gains.

Significance. If the results hold, AASD would be a useful training-free plug-in for speculative decoding that improves both accuracy and efficiency by exploiting prompt–output overlap, a setting where existing retrieval-based methods achieve lower acceptance rates. The paper's strengths include a coherent algorithmic design, a comparison to relevant retrieval-based baselines (REST, PLD) on efficiency, an ablation study isolating the two proposed components, an evaluation on SpecBench, and an honest discussion of limitations including safety concerns and the trade-off between accuracy and acceptance threshold. The central accuracy claim, however, is weakened by the absence of statistical rigor, an apples-to-oranges comparison against standard sampling methods, and a concern that Eq. (5) may reduce to unconditional acceptance for typical high-entropy token distributions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, Eq. (5)] The section/equation reference is given in the section field.
  2. [§4.1, Table 1] This is the second major comment in the array.
  3. [§4.1, Table 1] This is the third major comment.
  4. [§4.1] This is the fourth major comment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.3] In the text following Eq. (5), 'α a is the factor' is a typo; please correct it to 'α is the factor'.
  2. [Appendix C, Algorithm 1] The pseudocode is underspecified: the Sample function in line 12 is not defined, and the construction of the draft tree T and its attention mask is not explained in the algorithm. Please provide details or a reference to a formal definition.
  3. [Table 6] The header 'ADR' in Table 6 appears to be a typo for 'ARD' (autoregressive decoding); please fix it.
  4. [§4.1 and Table 8] The NQ dataset in Table 8 has a mean target length of 145 tokens, while the other QA datasets have target lengths around 5 tokens. This large discrepancy is not discussed; please explain whether it affects the comparability of the accuracy and efficiency results across QA datasets.
  5. [§4.1] The sentence 'We use unified hyperparameters for AASD on all datasets' is immediately followed by α=0.1 for LLaMA3.1 and α=0.2 for Qwen2.5. Please rephrase to distinguish per-model hyperparameters from per-dataset hyperparameters.
  6. [§2.2 and §3.3] The terms 'strict verification,' 'non-strict verification,' and 'conditional verification' are used without a precise definition of the acceptance rule in the strict case; please define them early in the paper to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AASD is an empirical method paper whose accuracy and efficiency claims are measured against external baselines, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

AASD's claimed contributions are algorithmic heuristics (alignment sampling, conditional verification) evaluated by experiments. The reported 3.3-point average score gain is a measured comparison against greedy, top-k, nucleus, and beam sampling on 8 external datasets; the speedup and mean acceptance length are measured against autoregressive decoding, REST, and PLD. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: alpha and beta are stated fixed hyperparameters (alpha=0.1/0.2, beta=0.1), and acceptance lengths are computed, not constructed. The paper does not invoke a self-citation chain or uniqueness theorem to force its design; the cited prior work (REST, Bachmann et al., PLD/LLMA) is used as baseline or motivation, and the paper's own cited Opt-tree appears only in related work. The skeptical observation that Eq. (5) can produce nonpositive thresholds for high-entropy distributions is a legitimate correctness/robustness concern about the heuristic, but it is not circularity: even if the adaptive threshold is vacuous in some regimes, the central accuracy and speedup claims remain empirical measurements against external references, not definitions or fitted restatements of the method's own inputs. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

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

The method introduces four free hyperparameters (α, β, max extra tokens, n-gram length) and several structural assumptions about prefill distributions, entropy-threshold linkage, and the benefit of non-strict verification. No new physical or architectural entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha = 0.1 (LLaMA3.1), 0.2 (Qwen2.5)
    Scales the entropy term in the adaptive threshold, Eq. (5). Chosen per model without a described selection procedure (Section 4.1).
  • beta = 0.1
    Baseline threshold value in Eq. (5); fixed manually and not tuned.
  • max_extra_tokens_per_position = 2
    Number of additional tokens sampled by alignment sampling at each misaligned position (Section 4.1).
  • draft_ngram_length = 6
    Length of retrieved n-grams and maximum key length for retrieval (Section 4.1).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Prefill output distributions are available and accurate for prompt positions used in drafting.
    The method samples additional tokens from the model's output distribution at prompt positions during the prefill forward pass (Section 3.2); this requires storing or recomputing per-token distributions.
  • ad hoc to paper The entropy of the verification distribution is a valid guide for how permissive the acceptance threshold should be.
    Eq. (5) asserts this relationship; no theoretical or empirical validation is given beyond end-task results.
  • domain assumption Longer retrieved keys give higher draft relevance.
    Section 3.1 prioritizes searching with longer keys following REST; this is a heuristic about n-gram matching.
  • standard math Parallel verification over a draft tree preserves the conditional probabilities of each node given its prefix.
    Assumed for causal transformer attention masks; standard in tree-based speculative decoding (Section 3.2).
  • domain assumption Accepting non-aligned prompt fragments of high quality improves accuracy.
    Motivates conditional verification (Section 2.4); the paper cites Bachmann et al. 2025 for the idea but does not prove it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alignment-Augmented Speculative Decoding with Alignment Sampling and Conditional Verification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VEL7M7ZY

@misc{pith2026250513204,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alignment-Augmented Speculative Decoding with Alignment Sampling and Conditional Verification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VEL7M7ZY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13204}
}
read the original abstract

Recent works have revealed the great potential of speculative decoding in accelerating the autoregressive generation process of large language models. The success of these methods relies on the alignment between draft candidates and the sampled outputs of the target model. Existing methods mainly achieve draft-target alignment with training-based methods, e.g., EAGLE, Medusa, involving considerable training costs. In this paper, we present a training-free alignment-augmented speculative decoding algorithm. We propose alignment sampling, which leverages output distribution obtained in the prefilling phase to provide more aligned draft candidates. To further benefit from high-quality but non-aligned draft candidates, we also introduce a simple yet effective flexible verification strategy. Through an adaptive probability threshold, our approach can improve generation accuracy while further improving inference efficiency. Experiments on 8 datasets (including question answering, summarization and code completion tasks) show that our approach increases the average generation score by 3.3 points for the LLaMA3 model. Our method achieves a mean acceptance length up to 2.39 and speed up generation by 2.23.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13204 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Acceptance rate of aligned and misaligned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of alignment sampling. “Jackson is a great” is an n-gram retreived by the key “Michael [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Speed-up ratio on the six different task cate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean acceptance length of different tasks [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of different tasks under threshold verification. The dotted lines in each figure are the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analysis for cases where AASD responses were correct while greedy sampling produced errors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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 INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Anthropic. 2024. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet Claude-3-5-sonnet model card

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Self-rag: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Gregor Bachmann, Sotiris Anagnostidis, Albert Pumarola, Markos Georgopoulos, Artsiom Sanakoyeu, Yuming Du, Edgar Schönfeld, Ali Thabet, and Jonas Kohler. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.19309 Judge decoding: Faster speculative sampling requires going beyond model alignment . Preprint, arXiv:2501.19309

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Yushi Bai, Xin Lv, Jiajie Zhang, Hongchang Lyu, Jiankai Tang, Zhidian Huang, Zhengxiao Du, Xiao Liu, Aohan Zeng, Lei Hou, and 1 others. 2023. Longbench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14508

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, Jason D. Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=PEpbUobfJv Medusa: Simple LLM inference acceleration framework with multiple decoding heads . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Bowen Cao, Deng Cai, Leyang Cui, Xuxin Cheng, Wei Bi, Yuexian Zou, and Shuming Shi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=oXYZJXDdo7 Retrieval is accurate generation . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    work page 2024

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    LMDeploy Contributors. 2023. Lmdeploy: A toolkit for compressing, deploying, and serving llm. https://github.com/InternLM/lmdeploy

    2023

  2. [10]

    Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2023. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  3. [11]

    Alexander Fabbri, Irene Li, Tianwei She, Suyi Li, and Dragomir Radev. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1102 Multi-news: A large-scale multi-document summarization dataset and abstractive hierarchical model . In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for...

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-1082 Hierarchical neural story generation . In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 889--898, Melbourne, Australia....

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=eDjvSFOkXw Break the sequential dependency of LLM inference using lookahead decoding . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  7. [15]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Daya Guo, Canwen Xu, Nan Duan, Jian Yin, and Julian McAuley. 2023. Longcoder: A long-range pre-trained language model for code completion. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 12098--12107. PMLR

    2023

  9. [17]

    Zhenyu He, Zexuan Zhong, Tianle Cai, Jason Lee, and Di He. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.88 REST : Retrieval-based speculative decoding . In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: H...

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6609--6625

    2020

  11. [19]

    Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. 2020. https://openreview.net/forum?id=rygGQyrFvH The curious case of neural text degeneration . In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2020

  12. [20]

    Luyang Huang, Shuyang Cao, Nikolaus Parulian, Heng Ji, and Lu Wang. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.02112 Efficient attentions for long document summarization . Preprint, arXiv:2104.02112

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mandar Joshi, Eunsol Choi, Daniel Weld, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1147 T rivia QA : A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational...

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer

    Sehoon Kim, Karttikeya Mangalam, Suhong Moon, Jitendra Malik, Michael W. Mahoney, Amir Gholami, and Kurt Keutzer. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=EfMyf9MC3t Speculative decoding with big little decoder . In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    2023

  15. [23]

    Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Matthew Kelcey, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina N. Toutanova, Llion Jones, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav...

    2019

  16. [24]

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. 2023. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. In Proceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Princip...

    2023

  17. [25]

    Tian Lan, Deng Cai, Yan Wang, Heyan Huang, and Xian-Ling Mao. 2023. https://openreview.net/forum?id=CROlOA9Nd8C Copy is all you need . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations

    2023

  18. [26]

    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

  19. [27]

    Jiwei Li, Will Monroe, Alan Ritter, Dan Jurafsky, Michel Galley, and Jianfeng Gao. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1127 Deep reinforcement learning for dialogue generation . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages ...

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=1NdN7eXyb4 EAGLE : Speculative sampling requires rethinking feature uncertainty . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

    2024

  21. [29]

    Tianyang Liu, Canwen Xu, and Julian McAuley. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=pPjZIOuQuF Repobench: Benchmarking repository-level code auto-completion systems . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  22. [30]

    Hongyin Luo, Yung-Sung Chuang, Yuan Gong, Tianhua Zhang, Yoon Kim, Xixin Wu, Danny Fox, Helen Meng, and James Glass. 2023. Sail: Search-augmented instruction learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15225

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. 2023. Query rewriting for retrieval-augmented large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14283

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Eric Melz. 2023. Enhancing llm intelligence with arm-rag: Auxiliary rationale memory for retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04177

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Meta-AI. 2024. https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3-1/ Introducing llama 3.1: Our most capable models to date

    2024

  26. [34]

    Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Zhengxin Zhang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Alan Zhu, Lijie Yang, Xiaoxiang Shi, and 1 others. 2023. Specinfer: Accelerating generative large language model serving with tree-based speculative inference and verificati...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    OpenAI. 2024. https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/ Learning to reason with llms

    2024

  28. [36]

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, and 25 others. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.15115 Qwe...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

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

    2023

  30. [38]

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

    2018

  31. [39]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, W...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Jikai Wang, Yi Su, Juntao Li, Qingrong Xia, Zi Ye, Xinyu Duan, Zhefeng Wang, and Min Zhang. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00735 Opt-tree: Speculative decoding with adaptive draft tree structure . Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13:188--199

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    Zilong Wang, Zifeng Wang, Long Le, Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Swaroop Mishra, Vincent Perot, Yuwei Zhang, Anush Mattapalli, Ankur Taly, Jingbo Shang, and 1 others. 2024 b . Speculative rag: Enhancing retrieval augmented generation through drafting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.08223

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Heming Xia, Tao Ge, Peiyi Wang, Si-Qing Chen, Furu Wei, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. Speculative decoding: Exploiting speculative execution for accelerating seq2seq generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3909--3925

    2023

  35. [43]

    Heming Xia, Zhe Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Peiyi Wang, Yongqi Li, Tao Ge, Tianyu Liu, Wenjie Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-acl.456 Unlocking efficiency in large language model inference: A comprehensive survey of speculative decoding . In Findings ...

    2024

  36. [44]

    Shi-Qi Yan, Jia-Chen Gu, Yun Zhu, and Zhen-Hua Ling. 2024. Corrective retrieval augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15884

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language ...

    2018

  39. [47]

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. 2023. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01558

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Penghao Zhao, Hailin Zhang, Qinhan Yu, Zhengren Wang, Yunteng Geng, Fangcheng Fu, Ling Yang, Wentao Zhang, and Bin Cui. 2024. Retrieval-augmented generation for ai-generated content: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19473

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Huaixiu Steven Zheng, Swaroop Mishra, Xinyun Chen, Heng-Tze Cheng, Ed H Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Take a step back: Evoking reasoning via abstraction in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06117

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.