Executing as You Generate: Hiding Execution Latency in LLM Code Interpreters
Authors: Zhensu Sun, Zhihao Lin, Zhi Chen, Chengran Yang, Mingyi Zhou, Li Li, David Lo
Organizations: Singapore Management University · Beihang University
Abstract
Current LLM systems are increasingly equipped with a code interpreter that executes generated code to obtain results. This works serially: the model first generates the complete code, then an interpreter executes it. This sequential workflow leaves the executor idle during generation and the generator idle during execution, resulting in unnecessary end-to-end latency. Our key observation is that an LLM, unlike a human developer, emits code tokens left to right and does not backtrack over what it has already written. This makes it possible to start executing a piece of code while later tokens are still being generated. We formalize this parallel execution paradigm, modeling it as a three-stage pipeline of generation, detection, and execution, and derive closed-form latency bounds that characterize its speedup potential and operating regimes. We then present EAGER, a concrete implementation featuring AST-based chunking, dynamic batching with gated execution, and early error interruption. We evaluate EAGER across four benchmarks, seven LLMs, and three execution environments. The overlap mechanism hides almost all execution behind generation, reducing the non-overlapped portion of execution time by up to 99.8% and cutting end-to-end latency by up to 37.3% on error-free runs.
Many LLMs plan before they act, yet planning and execution are often still entangled in one long generation trace, enforced only through prompts, or split across separate components. We argue that these two stages call for different computation: planning benefits from diversity and breadth, whereas execution demands precision and faithful adherence to a chosen strategy. Treating them as a single undifferentiated chain wastes tokens on routine derivation and makes it costly to explore alternative strategies at test time. We present the \textbf{Explore-Execute Chain (E\textsuperscript{2}C)}, which keeps both stages in one model but separates them structurally: a stochastic \textit{Exploration} phase drafts a concise high-level plan, and a deterministic \textit{Execution} phase carries it out. Causal SFT and RL train this split so that exploration stays informative and execution remains plan-faithful. Once plans are short yet decisive, extra inference compute can be directed to exploration rather than to repeatedly decoding full solutions. On AIME'2024 at K=32, \textbf{E\textsuperscript{2}C-ReAct Loop} reaches 53.3% accuracy with only 12.4k tokens, outperforming Tree-of-Thoughts (N=32: 50.0%, 71.3k). The same structure also supports lightweight domain adaptation: \textbf{Exploration-Focused SFT (EF-SFT)} updates only the planning phase, uses 3.5% of the tokens required by standard SFT, and improves medical benchmark accuracy by up to 14.5%.
Standard accuracy metrics cannot explain why LLMs handle variable tracking but fail on semantically equivalent loops. We study an internal lifecycle of code reasoning in which models first brew the answer, making it linearly recoverable many layers before it becomes self-decodable, and then diverge into one of four resolution outcomes: Resolved, Overprocessed, Misresolved, or Unresolved. Understanding this lifecycle matters because similar task accuracies can mask fundamentally different failure modes that surface-level evaluation cannot detect. We introduce a dual diagnostic framework pairing layer-wise linear probing with Context-Stripped Decoding (CSD) and apply it to six code-reasoning task families across 16 models spanning Qwen, Llama, and DeepSeek architectures. All four outcomes carry substantial mass in every task family: overall Resolved is only 41.5%, with multiple tasks below 30%. Controlled sweeps over structure, depth, and operators expose task-specific failure bottlenecks: Function Call Resolved plunges from 61.1% to 2.5% as call depth increases from one to three. Across architectures and scales, the brewing scaffold remains stable, with normalized brewing duration 24-42% across all 16 models, while resolution success varies with capability. This indicates that the scaffold is a stable empirical regularity across the tested decoder-only Transformer families, whereas resolution success covaries with capability, scale, and training. Code: https://github.com/euyis1019/llm-brewing
Large Language Model (LLM) generation remains expensive because autoregressive decoding calls the model once for each new token. Speculative decoding reduces this cost by drafting multiple tokens and verifying them with the target model in one step, but its speedup depends on how many drafted tokens are accepted. Parameter-free draft sources can propose long continuations at low cost in structured and agentic workloads, yet a cache match that looks promising at one generation step may have low payoff at the next. We propose Hybrid Verified Decoding, which predicts the accepted length of a cache draft before verification and uses this payoff estimate to choose between cache verification and a model-based drafter. Across three LLMs and sixteen datasets, Hybrid Verified Decoding is especially effective on agentic workflows, where it outperforms EAGLE3 in every setting with a 2.73x average speedup. Our analysis shows how prompt structure creates cache opportunities, how high-payoff cache drafts concentrate in a small part of the draft space, and how payoff-guided selection reduces sequential decoding work, pointing to runtime draft selection as a promising direction for speculative decoding.