Speculative decoding has emerged as a powerful approach to accelerate large language model (LLM) inference by employing lightweight draft models to propose candidate tokens that are subsequently verified by the target model. The effectiveness of this paradigm critically depends on the quality of the draft model. While recent advances such as the EAGLE series achieve state-of-the-art speedup, existing draft models remain limited by error accumulation: they condition only on the current prefix, causing their predictions to drift from the target model over steps. In this work, we propose ConFu (Contemplate the Future), a novel speculative decoding framework that enables draft models to anticipate the future direction of generation. ConFu introduces (i) contemplate tokens and soft prompts that allow the draft model to leverage future-oriented signals from the target model at negligible cost, (ii) a dynamic contemplate token mechanism with MoE to enable context-aware future prediction, and (iii) a training framework with anchor token sampling and future prediction replication that learns robust future prediction. ConFu improves token acceptance rates and generation speed over EAGLE-3 by 8--11% on Llama-3 3B/8B and by approximately 20% on Qwen-3 4B across downstream tasks. We believe our work is the first to bridge speculative decoding with continuous reasoning tokens, offering a new direction for accelerating LLM inference.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the purpose of future generation direction prediction
Figure 2: Overview of ConFu’s inference pipeline. Given the input tokens, the target model first produces the next output token along with a future prediction vector f , using both prompt tokens and contemplate tokens. The draft model then conditions on f as an additional future token to autoregressively generate draft tokens. Throughout the drafting process, the future token f remains fixed and is always appended to the end of the input sequence.
Figure 3: Verification with contemplate tokens in ConFu. Let t1,t2,t3 denote draft tokens in the speculative tree. We insert one contemplate token after each draft token so that the target model can simultaneously verify draft candidates and generate the corresponding future predictions. The tree attention mask is adjusted accordingly to ensure correct verification and alignment of future predictions with accepted tokens.
Figure 4: Illustration of Dynamic Contemplate Tokens with MoE. The input tokens contain both accepted tokens and the draft tokens of the current iteration. The MoE module only takes the hidden representation of the last accepted token as inputs. Then it computes the expert weights with a linear layer (router) and outputs the weighted sum of the selected learnable embeddings as the final contemplate token embedding. For simplicity a single [con] token is shown instead of 3 (1 for ’like’ and 2 for draft tokens)
Method
Nodes
T
WRIT
RP
CODE
EXT
STEM
HUM
SUMM
TRAN
QA
RAG
M/R
AVG
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
Eagle3
30
0.0
4.00
1.97
3.54
1.73
5.13
2.54
4.38
2.07
4.26
2.10
4.04
1.97
3.50
1.71
3.64
1.79
3.58
1.72
4.07
1.37
4.59
2.06
4.00
1.83
ConFu
30
0.0
4.55
2.18
4.18
1.96
5.72
2.75
4.96
2.27
4.85
2.33
4.59
2.18
3.95
1.88
4.16
1.98
3.91
1.83
4.52
2.00
5.21
2.45
4.41
2.11
Eagle3
30
0.7
3.78
1.78
3.41
1.60
4.86
2.30
4.17
1.90
4.00
1.89
3.75
1.75
3.44
1.60
3.40
1.60
3.43
1.60
3.90
1.29
4.32
2.01
3.81
1.70
ConFu
30
0.7
4.24
1.97
3.99
1.78
5.43
2.54
4.77
2.09
4.61
2.15
4.15
1.93
3.82
1.8
3.95
1.8
3.75
1.7
4.42
1.86
4.86
2.24
4.29
1.95
Eagle3
30
1.0
3.23
1.51
2.90
1.37
4.47
2.12
4.08
1.85
3.24
1.54
3.19
1.52
3.22
1.51
3.03
1.43
3.09
1.43
3.44
1.52
3.97
1.85
3.58
1.59
Table 1: Llama3.2-3B-Instruct comparison on SpecBench tasks across temperature={ 0.0,0.7,1.0 } and draft nodes={ 30,60 }. WRIT=writing, QA=question-answer, SUMMAR=summarization, TRANS=translation, CODE=coding, M/R=math/reasoning. Both metrics are higher the better.
Method
Nodes
T
WRIT
RP
CODE
EXT
STEM
HUM
SUMM
TRAN
QA
RAG
M/R
AVG
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
Eagle3
30
0.0
4.39
2.43
4.26
2.31
5.65
3.15
4.89
2.59
5.02
2.80
4.60
2.59
3.76
2.04
4.28
2.35
4.35
2.32
4.78
1.59
5.16
2.82
4.59
2.36
ConFu
30
0.0
5.03
2.74
4.64
2.50
6.00
3.32
5.19
2.75
5.47
3.03
5.18
2.89
4.07
2.20
4.87
2.66
4.63
2.46
5.19
2.60
5.65
3.08
5.01
2.69
Eagle3
30
0.7
4.09
2.23
3.91
2.14
5.36
2.95
4.72
2.48
4.45
2.45
4.27
2.34
3.64
1.96
4.03
2.19
3.99
2.12
4.49
2.27
4.88
2.63
4.31
2.31
ConFu
30
0.7
4.57
2.42
4.33
2.25
5.74
3.07
5.07
2.59
4.99
2.67
4.77
2.57
3.99
2.08
4.53
2.39
4.16
2.15
4.84
2.36
5.34
2.81
4.70
2.44
Eagle3
30
1.0
3.35
1.81
3.34
1.80
4.84
2.63
4.42
2.29
4.01
2.19
3.02
1.65
3.30
1.75
3.64
1.95
3.57
1.88
3.96
1.99
4.48
2.41
3.85
2.04
Table 2: Llama3.1-8B-Instruct comparison on SpecBench tasks across temperature={ 0.0,0.7,1.0 } and draft nodes={ 30,60 }. Both metrics are higher the better.
Method
Nodes
T
WRIT
RP
CODE
EXT
STEM
HUM
SUMM
TRAN
QA
RAG
M/R
AVG
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
τ
S/R
Eagle3
30
0.0
3.69
2.53
3.14
2.18
4.03
2.88
4.05
2.88
3.83
2.83
3.45
2.52
3.05
2.05
3.16
2.27
3.37
2.41
3.56
2.18
4.21
2.80
3.57
2.44
ConFu
30
0.0
4.57
3.10
3.69
2.53
4.98
3.53
4.92
3.39
4.49
3.29
4.08
2.95
3.59
2.34
3.86
2.74
4.01
2.83
4.37
3.05
5.15
3.59
4.32
3.00
Eagle3
30
0.7
3.61
2.46
3.22
2.22
3.96
2.78
4.24
2.89
3.65
2.68
3.41
2.46
3.05
2.03
3.12
2.22
3.35
2.36
3.56
2.50
4.19
2.91
3.56
2.48
ConFu
30
0.7
4.43
3.03
3.60
2.50
4.93
3.50
4.98
3.48
4.39
3.24
4.04
2.94
3.63
2.38
3.76
2.69
3.88
2.76
4.37
3.06
5.15
3.60
4.28
2.99
Eagle3
30
1.0
3.60
2.18
3.13
2.16
3.93
2.79
4.23
2.95
3.70
2.70
3.27
2.37
3.09
2.06
3.10
2.21
3.26
2.31
3.52
2.47
4.18
2.93
3.53
2.46
Table 3: Qwen3-4B comparison on SpecBench tasks across temperature={ 0.0,0.7,1.0 } and draft nodes={ 30,60 }. Both metrics are higher the better.
Method
T
WRIT
RP
CODE
EXT
STEM
HUM
SUMM
TRAN
QA
RAG
M/R
AVG
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
τ
SR
Eagle3
0.0
4.39
2.43
4.26
2.31
5.65
3.15
4.89
2.59
5.02
2.80
4.60
2.59
3.76
2.04
4.28
2.35
4.35
2.32
4.78
1.59
5.16
2.82
4.59
2.36
ConFu
0.0
5.03
2.74
4.64
2.50
6.00
3.32
5.19
2.75
5.47
3.03
5.18
2.89
4.07
2.20
4.87
2.66
4.63
2.46
5.19
2.60
5.65
3.08
5.01
2.69
− MoE
0.0
4.97
2.73
4.50
2.44
5.94
3.30
5.23
2.76
5.46
3.04
5.06
2.84
4.04
2.19
4.83
2.65
4.60
2.46
5.12
2.57
5.59
3.05
4.97
2.67
− MoE & Replicate
0.0
4.77
2.59
4.37
2.36
5.82
3.22
5.07
2.69
5.19
2.88
4.81
2.69
3.96
2.13
4.59
2.5
4.49
2.38
4.90
2.22
5.49
2.98
4.81
2.55
Eagle3
0.7
4.09
2.23
3.91
2.14
5.36
2.95
4.72
2.48
4.45
2.45
4.27
2.34
3.64
1.96
4.03
2.19
3.99
2.12
4.49
2.27
4.88
2.63
4.31
2.31
Table 4: Llama3.1-8B-Instruct ablation comparison on SpecBench tasks across temperature={ 0.0,0.7 } and draft nodes={ 30 }. WRIT=writing, QA=question-answer, SUMMAR=summarization, TRANS=translation, CODE=coding, M/R=math/reasoning. Both metrics are higher the better. Bold numbers indicate best performance under that temperature.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model (60 nodes)
Eagle3 (GB)
ConFu (GB)
Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct
7.50
7.52
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
17.08
17.12
Appendix
Table 5: Peak GPU memory usage (GB) when running with 60 draft nodes. Results are averaged over 10 SpecBench samples.
Length
Nodes
T
WRIT
RP
CODE
EXT
STEM
HUM
SUMM
TRAN
QA
RAG
M/R
AVG
4
30
0.0
4.72
4.10
5.70
4.95
4.85
4.48
4.17
3.93
3.88
4.56
5.16
4.50
7
30
0.0
4.55
4.18
5.72
4.96
4.85
4.59
3.95
4.16
3.91
4.52
5.21
4.41
10
30
0.0
4.64
4.02
5.76
4.99
4.79
4.51
4.17
3.96
3.91
4.57
5.15
4.50
4
30
0.7
4.35
3.87
5.37
4.67
4.55
4.30
3.88
3.78
3.70
4.35
4.94
4.27
7
30
0.7
4.24
3.99
5.43
4.77
4.61
4.15
3.82
3.95
3.75
4.42
4.86
4.29
10
30
0.7
4.35
3.97
5.62
4.74
4.59
4.22
3.88
3.81
3.63
4.34
4.86
4.26
Appendix
Table 6: Llama3.2-3B-Instruct ConFu average acceptance rate ( τ , higher is better) across temperature={ 0.0,0.7,1.0 } and draft nodes={ 30,60 }, for training block lengths {4,7,10}. Bold indicates the best length for each (Nodes, T) setting. WRIT=writing, QA=question-answer, SUMMAR=summarization, TRANS=translation, CODE=coding, M/R=math/reasoning
Figure 5: Survival function of accepted draft length, showing the probability that at least l consecutive draft tokens are accepted. ConFu consistently exhibits higher tail acceptance than EAGLE‑3, indicating more robust acceptance of long draft trajectories under strict decoding.
Large language models incur high inference latency due to sequential autoregressive decoding. Speculative decoding alleviates this bottleneck by using a lightweight draft model to propose multiple tokens for batched verification. However, its adoption has been limited by the lack of high-quality draft models and scalable training infrastructure. We introduce SpecForge, an open-source, production-oriented framework for training speculative decoding models with full support for EAGLE-3. SpecForge incorporates target-draft decoupling, hybrid parallelism, optimized training kernels, and integration with production-grade inference engines, enabling up to 9.9x faster EAGLE-3 training for Qwen3-235B-A22B. In addition, we release SpecBundle, a suite of production-grade EAGLE-3 draft models trained with SpecForge for mainstream open-source LLMs. Through a systematic study of speculative decoding training recipes, SpecBundle addresses the scarcity of high-quality drafts in the community, and our draft models achieve up to 4.48x end-to-end inference speedup on SGLang, establishing SpecForge as a practical foundation for real-world speculative decoding deployment.
Shenggui Li, Chao Wang, Yikai Zhu +14
Nanyang Technological University · SpecForge Team · Meituan +2
Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference by pairing a target model with a lightweight draft model whose proposed tokens are verified in parallel. A common way to build draft models, like EAGLE3 or DFlash is supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on target-generated trajectories. However, we observe that SFT quickly plateaus: the draft model's acceptance length on test data stops improving. The reason is an offline-to-inference mismatch: In SFT, the drafter learns from fixed target-generated trajectories, whereas during speculative decoding it is evaluated on blocks proposed under its own policy. This motivates on-policy distillation (OPD), where the target model supervises the drafter on draft-induced states. Yet OPD remains difficult for draft models, as they cannot reliably roll out complete sequences independently, whereas target-assisted generation makes the collected sequences follow the target distribution and thus eliminates the on-policy signal. We therefore propose Draft-OPD, which uses target-assisted rollout for stable continuations and replays drafting from the verification-exposed error positions. This allows the drafter to learn from target feedback on both accepted and rejected proposals, focusing training on the draft-induced errors that limit speculative acceptance. Experiments show that Draft-OPD achieves over 5× lossless acceleration for thinking models across diverse tasks, improving over EAGLE-3 and DFlash by 23% and 13%.
Haodi Lei, Yafu Li, Haoran Zhang +8
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Shanghai AI Laboratory · The Chinese University of Hong Kong +3
Speculative decoding has emerged as a promising approach to accelerate autoregressive inference in large language models (LLMs). Self-draft methods, which leverage the base LLM itself for speculation, avoid the overhead of auxiliary draft models but face limitations: shallow layers often produce overconfident yet incorrect token predictions, and the presence of difficult tokens in a draft sequence forces redundant computation through deeper layers, undermining both draft acceptance and overall speedup. To address these issues, we propose a novel self-draft framework that suppresses spurious confidence via layer-wise temperature annealing in early-exit decision and adaptively bounds speculation length based on token-wise decoding difficulty. By reprocessing the hidden states of draft tokens in a unified parallel pass through deep layers, our method maintains exact output equivalence with the original model while maximizing computational efficiency. It requires no modifications to the base LLM parameters and achieves up to 2.33x wall-time speedup over standard autoregressive decoding across diverse long-form generation tasks and multiple model architectures.
Zhuofan Wen, Yang Feng
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS) · State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China