Multi-path speculative decoding accelerates lossless sampling from a target model by using a cheaper draft model to generate a draft tree of tokens, and then applies a verification algorithm that accepts a subset of these. While prior work has proposed various verification algorithms for i.i.d rollouts, their relative performance under matched settings remains unclear. In this work, we firstly present a systematic evaluation of verification strategies across model families, tasks, and sampling regimes, and find that Traversal Verification dominates consistently, with OT-based methods lagging far behind. Our analysis uncovers that this occurs because OT-based methods achieve high multi-token acceptance near the root of the draft tree, while multi-token gains are most impactful deeper in the draft tree, where draft and target distributions diverge. Based on this insight, we propose delayed tree expansion, which drafts a partial single path, delaying the i.i.d. branching point. We show that delayed tree expansion preserves the target distribution and improves on root-node i.i.d rollouts. Further, we develop a dynamic neural selector that estimates the expected block efficiency of optimal-transport-based verification methods from draft and target features, enabling context-dependent expansion decisions. Our neural selector allows OT-based methods like SpecInfer to outperform Traversal Verification for the first time, achieving 5% higher average throughput across a wide range of models, datasets, and sampling settings.
Figures & tables
Algorithm
Appears In
Multi-Path
OT-Based
NaiveTree
Leviathan et al. (2023)
✓
✓
NSS
Miao et al. (2024)
✓
✓
SpecTr
Sun et al. (2023)
✓
✓
SpecInfer
Miao et al. (2024)
✓
✓
Khisti
Khisti et al. (2025)
✓
✓
Naive
Chen et al. (2023)
Table 1: Summary of all single-path and multi-path verification algorithms, and whether multi-path algorithms are OT-based.
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
NSS
4.44
1.99
5.72
4.05
BV
4.24
3.30
5.37
4.30
Khisti
4.90
2.05
6.29
4.41
NaiveTree
5.00
2.01
6.50
4.50
Naive
4.60
3.44
5.52
4.52
SpecInfer
5.13
2.07
6.55
4.58
Table 2: Average block efficiency across datasets and sampling configurations of existing verification algorithms. For more detailed data, see Appendix F .
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
NSS
16.88
5.94
12.91
11.91
Naive
16.55
9.20
11.58
12.44
Khisti
18.67
5.93
13.66
12.75
NaiveTree
19.16
6.00
14.71
13.29
SpecTr
19.01
6.09
14.86
13.32
BV
17.30
10.57
12.20
13.36
Table 3: Average throughput (tokens per second) across datasets and sampling configurations of existing verification algorithms. For more detailed data, see Appendix F .
Figure 1: We generate 200,000+ draft (Llama-3 8B-Instruct) trees from roots of target model (Llama-3 70B-Instruct) trajectories and compute both L1 target-draft distance and average OTLP acceptances across varying draft tree depths. The divergence between target and draft distributions spikes deeper in the tree, and acceptances across all OTLP methods consistently decrease with depth.
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
Khisti NDE
1.01
1.90
1.09
1.19
NaiveTree NDE
1.07
0.99
1.17
1.09
NSS NDE
0.97
1.68
1.01
1.11
SpecInfer NDE
0.98
1.65
1.01
1.10
SpecTr NDE
0.97
1.68
1.01
1.10
Table 4: Block efficiency ratio improvement of our NDE (neural dynamic expansion) approach over the baseline algorithms.
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
Khisti NDE
0.99
2.17
0.97
1.16
NaiveTree NDE
1.31
1.40
1.21
1.30
NSS NDE
1.20
2.09
0.96
1.26
SpecInfer NDE
1.15
2.14
0.96
1.23
SpecTr NDE
1.14
2.17
0.96
1.23
Table 5: Throughput (tokens per second) ratio improvement of our NDE (neural dynamic expansion) approach over the baseline algorithms.
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
Traversal
5.33
3.81
6.78
5.31
NSS NDE
4.31
3.34
5.78
4.48
NaiveTree NDE
4.94
3.42
6.47
4.94
SpecInfer NDE
5.03
3.42
6.64
5.03
SpecTr NDE
4.97
3.44
6.74
5.05
Khisti NDE
4.97
3.89
6.84
5.23
Table 6: Average block efficiency across datasets and sampling configurations. Traversal is best existing algorithm; NDE (neural delayed expansion) is ours. For more detailed data, see Appendix F .
Method
Qwen
Gemma
Llama
Average
Traversal
21.35
11.56
14.77
15.89
Khisti NDE
18.41
12.84
13.24
14.83
NSS NDE
20.29
12.40
12.45
15.05
NaiveTree NDE
21.67
12.86
14.01
16.18
SpecTr NDE
21.74
13.22
14.23
16.40
SpecInfer NDE
22.54
13.26
14.27
16.69
Table 7: Average throughput (tokens per second) across datasets and sampling configurations. Traversal is best existing algorithm; NDE (neural delayed expansion) is ours. For more detailed data, see Appendix F .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Qwen-2.5 (32B / 500M)
Gemma-3 (27B / 270M)
Llama-3 (70B / 8B)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Khisti, delayed expansion
14.21
17.81
14.16
23.05
22.80
8.93
9.90
10.73
17.39
17.28
11.00
14.24
13.93
13.75
13.26
Khisti
11.22
19.87
13.88
24.29
24.07
3.53
5.08
8.88
6.60
5.58
11.71
14.25
14.23
14.18
13.92
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
14.57
21.91
16.29
28.89
26.69
9.95
8.45
11.95
15.84
18.10
11.31
15.66
15.04
14.76
13.29
NaiveTree
10.25
19.08
13.28
27.52
25.67
3.48
5.26
9.74
6.48
5.04
11.77
16.10
15.71
15.68
14.28
Naive
7.90
17.47
9.76
24.84
22.77
4.72
6.79
7.30
13.15
14.07
8.65
13.05
12.72
12.42
11.04
Appendix
Table 8: Tokens per second by dataset and algorithm
Qwen-2.5 (32B / 500M)
Gemma-3 (27B / 270M)
Llama-3 (70B / 8B)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Writing
Coding
Translation
Math (E)
Math (H)
Khisti, delayed expansion
2.56
5.21
3.22
7.04
6.81
2.01
3.51
2.69
5.72
5.53
5.59
7.48
7.24
7.06
6.85
Khisti
2.78
5.16
3.50
6.59
6.50
1.21
1.77
3.09
2.26
1.92
5.26
6.64
6.63
6.57
6.35
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
2.41
5.31
3.42
7.06
6.49
1.89
2.75
2.82
4.62
5.00
5.15
7.36
6.98
6.75
6.10
NaiveTree
2.62
5.14
3.63
7.00
6.60
1.17
1.78
3.25
2.19
1.68
5.18
7.19
7.01
6.88
6.24
Naive
2.18
4.91
2.73
6.91
6.30
1.74
2.60
2.80
4.91
5.17
4.08
6.33
6.12
5.85
5.22
Appendix
Table 9: Block efficiency by dataset and algorithm
Temperature (top-p=1)
Top-p
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.99
Khisti, delayed expansion
19.59
19.94
20.06
19.42
17.36
13.58
19.50
17.80
Khisti
18.23
18.66
18.90
19.07
19.37
18.53
18.11
18.47
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
22.17
22.41
22.52
22.01
21.47
19.28
21.88
21.65
NaiveTree
19.75
20.20
19.82
19.52
18.98
16.90
19.03
19.06
Naive
15.40
15.86
16.58
16.85
16.74
16.05
17.51
17.39
Appendix
Table 10: Throughput (tokens per second) for Qwen
Temperature (top-p=1)
Top-p
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.99
Khisti, delayed expansion
4.85
5.02
5.21
5.42
5.28
3.91
4.88
5.18
Khisti
5.13
5.25
5.37
5.28
4.51
3.40
5.09
5.21
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
5.15
5.14
5.25
5.02
4.86
4.26
4.95
4.89
NaiveTree
5.16
5.20
5.17
5.11
4.97
4.44
4.98
4.96
Naive
4.48
4.65
4.84
4.93
4.61
4.18
4.59
4.56
Appendix
Table 11: Block Efficiencies for Qwen
Temperature (top-p=1)
Top-p
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.99
Khisti, delayed expansion
12.73
12.52
13.36
12.76
12.96
12.76
12.79
12.87
Khisti
5.95
5.87
5.86
5.82
6.01
6.00
5.98
5.95
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
13.36
12.97
12.55
12.53
12.75
12.93
12.94
12.82
NaiveTree
6.03
5.96
5.86
6.01
6.10
5.94
6.01
6.11
Naive
8.99
9.19
9.37
9.45
9.06
9.04
9.25
9.29
Appendix
Table 12: Throughput (tokens per second) for Gemma
Temperature (top-p=1)
Top-p
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.99
Khisti, delayed expansion
3.82
3.78
4.06
3.90
3.91
3.89
3.86
3.92
Khisti
2.05
2.04
2.02
2.01
2.07
2.06
2.09
2.06
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
3.51
3.41
3.34
3.34
3.43
3.51
3.37
3.43
NaiveTree
2.02
2.00
1.97
2.02
2.04
1.98
2.04
2.04
Naive
3.47
3.34
3.40
3.53
3.50
3.57
3.37
3.37
Appendix
Table 13: Block Efficiencies for Gemma
Temperature (top-p=1)
Top-p
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.90
0.99
Khisti, delayed expansion
13.20
13.14
13.56
13.44
13.52
11.44
13.91
13.67
Khisti
13.52
13.46
13.82
13.89
13.79
12.75
14.06
13.99
NaiveTree, delayed expansion
13.79
14.11
13.99
14.13
14.24
13.56
14.05
14.22
NaiveTree
14.22
14.39
14.41
15.32
14.50
14.34
15.35
15.12
Naive
10.61
11.09
11.57
11.96
12.08
11.38
12.06
11.87
Appendix
Table 14: Throughput (tokens per second) for Llama
The goal of L-step speculative decoding is to accelerate autoregressive decoding of a target model by using a cheaper draft model to generate a candidate path of L tokens. Based on a verification algorithm involving target and draft model probabilities, a prefix of the candidate sequence is accepted, and an additional correction token is sampled from a residual distribution to ensure that the final output adheres to the target distribution. While standard speculative decoding uses a verification algorithm which is independent at each token on the path, a recent extension called block verification uses a joint condition involving all sampled on-path probabilities. Block verification (BV) was shown to be optimal over all verification algorithms which use only on-path probabilities, improving on standard speculative decoding. In this work, we first show that block verification is optimal even over verification algorithms that use off-path probabilities, by constructing an information-agnostic linear program (LP). Further, we can extend our LP to the setting where the draft model samples multiple candidate paths, and use it to construct a natural class of multi-path block verification generalizations. While computing the optimal algorithm in this class is not tractable, by considering a stricter class of greedy algorithms, we can formulate an efficient method called greedy multi-path block verification (GBV). Empirically, GBV can improve block efficiency by over 30% and reduce decoding walltimes by over 15% relative to BV. On Llama-3 70B, GBV can improve the end-to-end decoding throughput over SOTA multi-path verification methods by more than 15%.
Speculative decoding accelerates Large Language Models via draft-then-verify, where verification can be framed as an Optimal Transport (OT) problem. Existing approaches typically handle multi-draft and multi-step aspects in isolation, applying either flat OT to single-step drafts or per-token rejection sampling to tree-structured candidates. This separation leaves the joint regime (where multi-step dependencies meet multi-draft branching) poorly optimized, as local verification rules fail to exploit the coupling between horizontal and vertical dimensions of candidate trees. In this paper, we propose a unified perspective that casts tree-based verification as a conditional OT problem. Our key insight is that vertical dependencies can be abstracted through prefix acceptance probabilities, which act as dynamic scaling factors to actively guide horizontal draft selection. Based on this principle, we introduce UniVer, a verification algorithm that jointly optimizes across tree levels by composing local optimal transport plans under prefix constraints. We prove that UniVer remains lossless and achieves the optimal acceptance rate under the proposed conditional framework. Extensive experiments across different tasks and models demonstrate that UniVer improves acceptance length by 4.2% to 8.5% over standard recursive rejection sampling without replacement, while maintaining exact distributional alignment with the target model.
Yepeng Weng, Qiao Hu, Takehisa Yairi
The University of Tokyo · 2Lenovo AI Technology Center · National Center for Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Sciences (NCMIS), AMSS, CAS
Speculative decoding is an effective technique for accelerating large language model inference by drafting multiple tokens in parallel. In practice, its speedup is often bottlenecked by a rigid verification step that strictly enforces the accepted token distribution to exactly match the target model. This constraint leads to the rejection of many plausible tokens, lowering the acceptance rate and limiting overall time speedup. To overcome this limitation, we propose Dynamic Verification Relaxed Speculative Decoding (DIVERSED), a relaxed verification framework that improves time efficiency while preserving generation quality. DIVERSED learns an ensemble-based verifier that blends the draft and target model distributions with a task-dependent and context-dependent weight. We provide theoretical justification for our approach and demonstrate empirically that DIVERSED achieves substantially higher inference efficiency compared to standard speculative decoding methods. Code is available at: https://github.com/comeusr/diversed.
Ziyi Wang, Siva Rajesh Kasa, Ankith M S +6
Purdue University · Amazon Inc. · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +1