As Large Language Models (LLMs) scale up, inference efficiency becomes a critical bottleneck. Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) could accelerate LLM inference by predicting multiple future tokens in parallel. However, existing MTP approaches still face two challenges: limited acceptance rates of MTP heads, and difficulties in jointly training multiple MTP heads. Therefore, we propose MTP-D, a simple yet effective self-distillation method with minimal additional training cost, which boosts MTP head acceptance rates (+7.5%) while maximumly preserving main-head performance. We also introduce a looped extension strategy for MTP-D, enabling effective and economical MTP head extension and further significant inference speedup to 1-head MTP (+220.4%). Moreover, we systematically explore and validate key insights on the distillation strategies and the potential scalability of MTP through extensive experiments on seven benchmarks. These results demonstrate that our MTP-D and looped extension strategy effectively enhance MTP-head performance and inference efficiency, facilitating the practical usage of MTP in LLMs.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the gradient-detached, Top N -logits-selected self-distillation method.
Figure 2: Illustration of the training strategy for looped extension of MTP-D. The gray blocks represent the frozen main model and the trained MTP heads from 1 to m . The weights of the MTP heads from 1 to m are copied to initialize the MTP heads from m+1 to 2m . The orange blocks denote the trainable MTP heads.
Figure 3: Acceptance rate and cumulative acceptance rate of MTP heads for different models under training-free looped extension. Using the AGIEval-en benchmark as an example, (a) shows the cumulative acceptance rate as the loop is extended to 8 MTP heads for different models, while (b) presents the acceptance rate of each MTP head.
General
Math
Knowledge
STEM
K
Model
Method (MTP)
H
AGIEval en
GSM8K
MATH
Natural Questions
Simple QA
TriviaQA
Super GPQA
1
2B Dense
MTP
1
85.75
84.86
85.66
90.91
94.28
82.32
85.10
MTP-D
1
88.98
88.54
89.58
94.40
94.30
86.78
87.93
A1B MoE
MTP
1
85.41
85.24
85.25
91.34
90.65
80.18
82.51
MTP-D
1
90.98
89.36
87.62
93.80
93.99
86.27
87.38
4
2B Dense
MTP
1
81.88 / 81.88
90.32 / 90.32
81.27 / 81.27
89.23 / 89.23
85.17 / 85.17
82.09 / 82.09
82.62 / 82.62
Table 1: Cumulative acceptance rate and acceptance rate of MTP heads for the 2B Dense and A1B MoE models across multiple benchmarks. Here, H denotes the index of the MTP head. For the K=1 group, the CAR is identical to the AR. For the K=4 group, each cell reports CAR/AR (%) values. The best CARs of different MTP heads are highlighted in bold . For 2B Dense (A1B) with 1 head, MTP-D improves the average acceptance rate by 3.09% (4.11%). With 4 heads, the improvement is 3.91% (4.73%) for the fourth head.
Figure 4: Speedup ratios of the 2B Dense model under different MTP methods and K settings across multiple benchmarks, where the inference speed of 1 head MTP serves as the baseline.
Figure 5: Comparison of performance across different looped extension strategies with up to 8 loops. The 1-head MTP serves as the baseline.
General
Math
Knowledge
STEM
Strategy
AGIEval en
GSM8K
MATH
Natural Questions
Simple QA
TriviaQA
Super GPQA
Mean
MTP-D
19.20 | 88.98
1.74 | 88.54
1.70 | 89.58
13.00 | 94.30
2.22 | 94.30
37.08 | 86.78
6.81 | 87.93
11.68 | 90.06
no detach
19.60 | 93.67
1.74 | 93.70
1.50 | 93.78
11.58 | 96.88
2.01 | 96.40
30.42 | 92.31
4.45 | 93.61
10.19 | 94.34
Top N
10000x2
18.18 | 89.80
1.44 | 90.12
1.40 | 89.84
13.24 | 94.19
2.41 | 93.74
34.72 | 87.33
7.53 | 88.53
11.27 | 90.51
1000
20.64 | 90.44
1.36 | 88.63
1.50 | 89.52
12.77 | 94.73
2.29 | 94.06
34.86 | 88.75
6.88 | 87.14
11.47 | 90.47
1
18.91 | 87.55
1.82 | 87.00
1.65 | 85.76
13.38 | 92.06
2.24 | 92.56
36.11 | 83.11
6.16 | 83.72
11.47 | 87.39
Table 2: Ablation results for MTP-D with 1 head across multiple benchmarks. Each cell shows two numbers separated by “|” (left: main-head accuracy; right: MTP-head AR). The MTP-D configuration is as follows: detach , Top N=10,000 , βk=1.0 , and the KL function is the forward KL. Underlined entries indicate strategies that significantly reduce main-head performance.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
2B Dense
N10BA1B MoE
dim
2048
1536
n_heads
16
32
n_kv_heads
4
4
head_dim
128
128
embedding_tie
False
False
qk_norm
True
True
Appendix
Table 3: Detailed description of model configurations.
Hyperparameter
MTP-D
Looped MTP
Optimizer
AdamW
Adam (β1,β2)
(0.9, 0.95)
Adam ϵ
1×10−8
Weight decay
0.1
Clip grad norm
1.0
Max lr
3.0×10−4
Appendix
Table 4: Training hyperparameter details for MTP-D and looped MTP
Figure 6: Illustration of the probability distributions of the main head logits for the t -th token under different Top N settings.
Figure 7: Illustration of the training loss curves for a 2B dense LLM equipped with 4 heads. The final losses of the main head and MTP heads 1 to 4 are 2.47 and [2.73, 2.85, 2.92, 2.96], respectively.
Figure 8: Speedup ratios of the A1B MoE model under different MTP methods and K settings across multiple benchmarks, where the inference speed of 2B Dense DeepSeek MTP with K=1 serves as the baseline.
K
Model
Method (MTP)
Mean
1
2B Dense
MTP
11.28
MTP-D
11.68
A1B MoE
MTP
13.75
MTP-D
14.15
4
2B Dense
MTP
11.06
MTP-D
10.96
Appendix
Table 5: Mean accuracy of the main head for the 2B Dense and A1B MoE models across benchmarks using different MTP methods.
Figure 9: Ablation experiments for MTP-D and its variants with loss as metrics. Orange indicates losses better than MTP-D, while green indicates worse performance.
Figure 10: Training loss curves for the 2B Dense model with 1 head using the whole vocabulary.
Strategy
Mean
MTP-D
10.96
βk=0.1
10.93
βk=0.3
11.13
βk=1.0
10.62
step weights
9.39
ensemble mean
11.22
Appendix
Table 6: Main-head mean accuracy of ablation experiments for MTP-D with 4 heads.
General
Math
Knowledge
STEM
Strategy
H
AGIEval en
GSM8K
MATH
Natural Questions
Simple QA
TriviaQA
Super GPQA
MTP-D
1
85.86 / 85.86
85.20 / 85.20
86.20 / 86.20
91.69 / 91.69
90.16 / 90.16
84.73 / 84.73
87.77 / 87.77
2
71.96 / 83.81
70.97 / 83.29
71.96 / 83.48
84.63 / 92.30
81.15 / 90.01
69.46 / 81.98
71.16 / 84.00
3
61.25 / 85.12
57.57 / 81.12
62.57 / 86.95
78.33 / 92.55
74.71 / 92.06
56.75 / 81.70
58.57 / 82.31
4
52.96 / 86.46
46.27 / 80.38
54.98 / 87.94
72.76 / 92.89
71.22 / 95.34
46.42 / 81.81
48.52 / 82.85
βk=0.3
1
83.57 / 83.57
85.42 / 85.42
83.38 / 83.38
91.39 / 91.39
86.67 / 86.67
82.24 / 82.24
83.86 / 83.86
Appendix
Table 7: MTP-head AR and CAR for MTP-D with 4 heads across benchmarks, comparing three groups with similar main-head performance.
Figure 11: Cumulative acceptance rates on multiple pretraining benchmarks with the training-free looped MTP scaled up to 8.
Figure 12: Acceptance rates on multiple pretraining benchmarks with the training-free looped MTP scaled up to 8.
Figure 13: Cumulative acceptance rates on multiple pretraining benchmarks with the looped MTP scaled up to 8.
Figure 14: Cumulative acceptance rates on multiple pretraining benchmarks with the looped MTP scaled up to 16.
General
Math
Knowledge
STEM
Loop
Method
AGIEval en
GSM8K
MATH
Natural Questions
Simple QA
TriviaQA
Super GPQA
Mean
1
MTP-D
1.128
1.142
1.188
1.212
1.196
1.114
1.016
1.142
4
MTP-D
1.940
2.107
2.330
2.856
2.594
2.782
1.994
2.372
1 to 8
MTP-D ∗
1.337
1.451
1.726
2.356
1.971
2.263
1.280
1.769
MTP
1.764
2.034
2.343
3.835
3.440
3.353
1.733
2.644
MTP-D
1.964
2.197
2.741
4.193
3.505
3.455
1.865
2.846
Appendix
Table 8: Speedup ratios of different loop strategies for MTP-D and MTP during continued pre-training. Except for MTP-D with 350B data sizes, all other continued pre-training experiments use a data size of 70B tokens. * indicates Training Free.
Multi-token prediction trains models to forecast several future tokens at once, supporting more efficient generation and richer predictive representations.
Multi-token prediction has been shown to increase data density during training, improve downstream text-generation quality, and serves as the defacto approach for self-speculative decoding. Existing foundation and open source models that use MTP heads commit to a static tree-based attention topology throughout the entire generation sequence, meaning the speculation depth, and thus the compute required during verification, stays constant regardless of the context. This is fundamentally misaligned with the entropy patterns of natural language where low-entropy regions often support reliable multi-step drafting, while high-entropy regions require more conservative speculation. To address this, we propose Entropy-guided Multi-Token Prediction (EntMTP), a training-free scheduler that toggles between tree-based attention topologies from a set of task-specific pareto-optimal trees conditioned on a running estimate of local generation entropy. By matching speculation depth to context predictability, EntMTP maximizes expected accepted-token throughput across the full distribution of generated text without sacrificing generation quality. When evaluated across Humaneval, ShareGPT, GSM8k, and Litbench benchmarks, EntMTP consistently achieves a 1.15x speedup against Hydra and peak speedup of 1.36x against Medusa baselines respectively.
Large language model inference is bottlenecked by autoregressive decoding, where each token requires a full forward pass. Multi-token prediction (MTP) offers a promising acceleration path, but existing approaches suffer from a fundamental architectural flaw: the MTP head for the first token competes with the backbone's own language model (LM) head, leading to severe quality degradation when predictions are accepted. We identify this head-backbone competition as the root cause of repetitive and incoherent outputs in prior MTP-based acceleration methods. To address this, we propose Backbone-as-Architect, a design principle where the backbone LM head always generates the first token, and MTP heads are responsible only for subsequent tokens. Building on this principle, we introduce CLP (Collocation-Length Predictor), a lightweight span-level decision layer that predicts how many additional tokens can be safely accepted at each decoding step. CLP uses only a single linear layer (4.6K--7.7K parameters), replacing the over-engineered 1M-parameter gate networks used in prior work. Experiments on Qwen2.5 models (0.5B, 1.5B, 7B) show that CLP achieves 1.20x--1.29x speedup on 1.5B and 1.14x--1.20x on 7B, with zero quality degradation (repetition ratio < 0.02), while gate-based approaches fail to accelerate (1.07x) or produce severely degraded outputs (repetition ratio > 0.5%). We further demonstrate that shorter prediction horizons (k=2) recover 24% higher MTP head accuracy on large models, establishing a scaling-aware design principle. We identify MTP head prediction accuracy as the binding constraint on acceleration and establish a clear roadmap for future improvements.
Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) has emerged as an effective paradigm that augments a shared Large Language Model backbone with auxiliary heads, training the model to predict several future tokens in parallel to enrich its supervision signal and accelerate inference. However, existing training frameworks adopt a rigid, fixed-length prediction horizon, disregarding the highly non-uniform information density of natural language and code. Forcing the auxiliary heads to predict across high-entropy semantic boundaries injects noisy, conflicting training signals; because these heads share the backbone's latent representations, the resulting gradients backpropagate and interfere with the model's core capabilities. We propose AdaMTP, an adaptive training paradigm that dynamically aligns the prediction horizon with the intrinsic predictability of the sequence. At its core, an entropy-based segmentation algorithm leverages the base model to detect sudden surges in uncertainty as semantic boundaries, partitioning sequences into variable-length groups. Each token is assigned an adaptive prediction depth, and a dynamically masked MTP objective suppresses the loss for predictions that cross these boundaries, attenuating the noisy gradients that degrade the backbone. Across mathematical reasoning, code generation, and general benchmarks on three backbones (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Gemma-3-12B), AdaMTP consistently outperforms standard MTP in both task performance and inference speedup.
Ziqiang Cui, Han Shi, Bowei He +8
City University of Hong Kong · Huawei Technologies · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence +2