Speculative decoding accelerates autoregressive generation by letting a lightweight draft model propose future tokens that a larger target model then verifies in parallel. In practice, however, draft models are usually trained on broad generic corpora, which leaves it unclear how much speculative decoding quality depends on the draft training distribution. We study this question with lightweight HASS and EAGLE-2 drafters trained on MathInstruct, ShareGPT, and mixed-data variants, evaluated on MT-Bench, GSM8K, MATH-500, and SVAMP. Measured by acceptance length, task-specific training yields clear specialization: MathInstruct-trained drafts are strongest on reasoning benchmarks, while ShareGPT-trained drafts are strongest on MT-Bench. Mixed-data training improves robustness, but larger mixtures do not dominate across decoding temperatures. We also study how to combine specialized drafters at inference time. Naive checkpoint averaging performs poorly, whereas confidence-based routing improves over single-domain drafts and merged-tree verification yields the highest acceptance length overall for both backbones. Finally, confidence is a more useful routing signal than entropy: rejected tokens tend to have higher entropy, but confidence produces much clearer benchmark-level routing decisions. These results show that speculative decoding quality depends not only on draft architecture, but also on the match between draft training data and downstream workload, and that specialized drafters are better combined at inference time than in weight space.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic of the speculative decoding pipeline. Given contextual information from the target LLM, the draft model generates latent proposed tokens, which are converted by the LM head and sampling module into multiple candidate future tokens. These candidates are provisional and are later verified by the target model. Importantly, the trainable component in this framework is the draft model, whose role is to efficiently approximate the target model’s next-token behavior while preserving the target model’s final output distribution after verification.
Figure 2: Two strategies for combining specialized draft models. Left: checkpoint weight merging in parameter space. Right: confidence-based routing at inference time.
Figure 3: Confidence Routing Between Specialized Trees. The MathInstruct and ShareGPT checkpoints generate separate draft trees from the same prefix, with node labels indicating draft confidence. Confidence routing selects the tree with the higher mean node confidence before verification.
Table 1: Main Results by Research Question. Average acceptance length on MT-Bench, GSM8K, MATH-500, and SVAMP for HASS and EAGLE-2 at temperatures 0 and 1 . Rows are grouped by the question they answer: RQ1 tests single-domain specialization, RQ2 mixed-data robustness, and RQ3 composition strategies. Higher is better.
Figure 6: Interpolation Sweep for Checkpoint Averaging. Acceptance length is plotted against the interpolation weight between the MathInstruct and ShareGPT draft checkpoints under a fixed verifier setup. Weight-space averaging is unstable and remains well below the strongest inference-time composition methods.
Figure 7: Accepted vs. Rejected Token Entropy. Both panels compare draft entropy at temperature 0 for EAGLE-2 and HASS on the same benchmark suite and checkpoint families. Entropy is a useful diagnostic of rejection, but Table 2 shows that it is weaker than confidence for routing.
Confidence Routing
Entropy Routing
Benchmark
MathInstruct
ShareGPT
Total
MathInstruct
ShareGPT
Total
MT-Bench
15 (18.8%)
65 (81.2%)
80
42 (52.5%)
38 (47.5%)
80
GSM8K
1198 (90.8%)
121 (9.2%)
1319
720 (54.6%)
599 (45.4%)
1319
MATH-500
485 (97.0%)
15 (3.0%)
500
312 (62.4%)
188 (37.6%)
500
SVAMP
279 (93.0%)
21 (7.0%)
300
159 (53.0%)
141 (47.0%)
300
Table 2: Routing Decisions by Benchmark. Benchmark-level routing counts for EAGLE-2 under confidence-based and entropy-based selection. Confidence routing separates conversational and mathematical workloads much more clearly than entropy routing.
Figure 8: Acceptance by Speculative Depth. Acceptance rate is shown by draft depth for HASS and EAGLE-2 at temperatures 0 and 1 across MT-Bench, GSM8K, MATH-500, and SVAMP. Acceptance declines with depth for all variants, while domain specialization remains visible and often sharpens on reasoning-heavy tasks.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Checkpoint
Benchmark
Draft Accepted
Draft Rejected
Δ Draft
Verifier Accepted
Verifier Rejected
Δ Verifier
Averaged
GSM8K
8.0257
9.2397
+1.2141
0.1567
0.2698
+0.1131
Averaged
MATH-500
8.8405
9.8344
+0.9938
0.2013
0.3787
+0.1774
Averaged
MT-Bench
8.5128
9.4886
+0.9758
0.2427
0.5796
+0.3368
Averaged
SVAMP
7.8233
9.0891
+1.2658
0.1703
0.2833
+0.1131
MathInstruct
GSM8K
0.5284
1.0756
+0.5473
0.1500
0.4246
+0.2746
MathInstruct
MATH-500
0.4567
0.8555
+0.3988
0.1984
0.5067
+0.3083
Appendix
Table 3: EAGLE-2 Entropy at Temperature 0. Each row reports accepted-token and rejected-token entropy for one benchmark. Positive Δ means higher entropy for rejected tokens.
Checkpoint
Benchmark
Draft Accepted
Draft Rejected
Δ Draft
Verifier Accepted
Verifier Rejected
Δ Verifier
MathInstruct
GSM8K
1.0731
1.4475
+0.3744
0.1613
0.5508
+0.3895
MathInstruct
MATH-500
2.0806
2.1836
+0.1030
0.1928
0.6625
+0.4698
MathInstruct
MT-Bench
4.4777
5.2238
+0.7461
0.2358
1.3139
+1.0780
MathInstruct
SVAMP
1.3927
1.6778
+0.2851
0.1765
0.5660
+0.3896
ShareGPT
GSM8K
1.0690
1.7551
+0.6861
0.1549
0.5937
+0.4388
ShareGPT
MATH-500
2.2460
2.3454
+0.0995
0.1814
0.7575
+0.5761
Appendix
Table 4: HASS Entropy at Temperature 0. Each row reports accepted-token and rejected-token entropy for one benchmark. Positive Δ means higher entropy for rejected tokens.
Depth
Variant
MT-Bench
GSM8K
MATH-500
SVAMP
Avg
1
MathInstruct
72.0%
96.1%
97.9%
94.9%
90.2%
1
ShareGPT
89.9%
93.1%
90.6%
91.9%
91.4%
1
Mixed 35k+35k
88.7%
95.3%
96.4%
94.3%
93.7%
1
Averaged
71.3%
88.3%
89.3%
87.0%
84.0%
1
Mixed 70k+70k
80.0%
80.8%
86.6%
80.7%
82.0%
2
MathInstruct
52.6%
88.8%
92.5%
86.8%
80.2%
Appendix
Table 5: EAGLE-2 Acceptance by Depth at Temperature 0. Higher rows correspond to shallower draft positions in the speculative tree.
Depth
Variant
MT-Bench
GSM8K
MATH-500
SVAMP
Avg
1
MathInstruct
68.5%
94.1%
91.5%
93.1%
86.8%
1
ShareGPT
85.7%
91.7%
83.7%
90.7%
88.0%
1
Mixed 35k+35k
85.1%
93.8%
89.9%
93.3%
90.5%
1
Averaged
67.6%
86.1%
81.2%
84.0%
79.7%
1
Mixed 70k+70k
75.5%
76.9%
75.6%
78.1%
76.5%
2
MathInstruct
50.1%
86.3%
82.0%
84.7%
75.8%
Appendix
Table 6: EAGLE-2 Acceptance by Depth at Temperature 1. Higher rows correspond to shallower draft positions in the speculative tree.
Depth
Variant
MT-Bench
GSM8K
MATH-500
SVAMP
Avg
1
MathInstruct
61.6%
94.6%
95.9%
94.8%
86.7%
1
ShareGPT
84.5%
90.9%
88.0%
89.4%
88.2%
1
Mixed 35k+35k
84.9%
95.2%
96.1%
94.7%
92.7%
1
Averaged
68.1%
87.5%
90.9%
87.4%
83.5%
1
Mixed 70k+70k
82.3%
85.1%
90.6%
86.2%
86.0%
2
MathInstruct
50.9%
84.8%
88.9%
82.3%
76.7%
Appendix
Table 7: HASS Acceptance by Depth at Temperature 0. Higher rows correspond to shallower draft positions in the speculative tree.
Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference by using a low-cost draft model to propose tokens that the full-size target model verifies in parallel. Parallel and semi-autoregressive (semi- AR) drafters improve drafting efficiency by proposing an entire block in a single forward pass, but training them raises a new difficulty: the draft distribution for a given position depends on where the decoding round starts, and where rounds start depends on how many tokens earlier rounds accepted. Existing training objectives typically rely on block-local surrogates that ignore this cross-round coupling, and therefore do not directly optimize the global decoding efficiency. In this work, we develop a theoretical framework for training and evaluating these drafters by representing speculative decoding as a Markov reward process. This formulation yields the Expected Decoding Rounds (EDR) objective, which weights local rejection costs by state occupancies and exactly equals the expected number of decoding rounds. Unlike prior surrogate objectives, EDR introduces no auxiliary hyperparameters. We then derive an exact temporal-difference gradient that supports unbiased stochastic optimization from target-model rollouts. The same framework also yields an exact offline evaluator for round counts, enabling paired drafter comparisons on shared target rollouts without running speculative decoding. Finetuning two state-of-the- art drafters, DSpark and DFly, with EDR consistently improves mean accepted length and outperforms existing training objectives across nine benchmarks spanning math reasoning, code generation, and chat.
Yunxiao Zhao, Changxiao Cai
Department of Industrial and Operations Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
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 accelerates autoregressive large language model inference by drafting multiple tokens and verifying them in a single target-model forward pass. Recent diffusion-based drafters generate an entire block of tokens in parallel but usually commit to a single draft sequence per verification: once the first mismatch occurs, all subsequent draft tokens are discarded, resulting in a limited acceptance rate. Naively batching more draft candidate sequences only introduces a marginal improvement, as redundant or poorly placed branches increase the cost of drafting and verification without proportionally increasing the number of accepted tokens. We propose D^2SD, a dual diffusion draft speculative decoding framework that organizes candidates into a confidence-guided prefix tree, where the first diffusion drafter generates a block along with per-position confidence scores that are used to identify the most likely rejection boundary and select the top-K prefix ranges for recovery; the second variable-prefix diffusion drafter re-anchors at each selected prefix and proposes alternative continuations in one batched pass; the resulting shared-prefix candidates are jointly verified via cascade attention. Empirically, D^2SD shows clear improvements over both the underlying diffusion approach and strong autoregressive speculative decoding baselines.
Liyuan Zhang, Jiarui Zhang, Jinwei Yao +6
Peking University · Tsinghua University · HKUST +2