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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our method improves upon the Pareto frontier achieved by static ensemble, attaining better trade-offs between inference time and generation quality. Results are reported on the CNNDM dataset using the target/draft model pair: Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct, with temperature being 0 . More results are in Appendix Figure 10 .
Figure 2: Compared with classic speculative decoding (shown in (a) rigid verification), our Diversed (c) achieves a higher acceptance rate, comparable accuracy, and lower wall-clock time. Compared with static ensemble (b), Diversed (c) attains higher accuracy via a tunable ensemble weight that adapts to the task and the context.
Figure 4: Normalized total time (lower is better) versus acceptance rate (higher is better) under speculative decoding with draft length N=5 . Model pairs with higher acceptance achieve lower decoding time. Results on the CNNDM, XSUM, MBPP, and GSM8K datasets for three target/draft pairs. Additional results for draft lengths N=3 and N=7 are provided in Appendix Figures 8 and 9 .
GSM8K
CNNDM
XSum
MBPP
Method
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
Quality Accuracy ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality pass@1 ( ↑ )
Autoregressive
NA
67 %
NA
9.86
NA
7.03
NA
53 %
SD
44.60 %
67 %
21.60 %
9.46
20.44 %
7.09
26.30 %
53 %
SD (Lossy)
59.81 %
66 %
38.86 %
10.51
40.91 %
7.96
66.75 %
49 %
SpecCascade
61.53 %
67 %
47.29 %
11.74
43.95 %
7.61
73.92 %
52 %
Static Ensemble
69.49 %
66 %
61.06 %
11.46
51.58 %
7.22
68.70 %
52 %
Table 1: Benchmark acceptance rate and generation quality. Columns group results by task while panels (a)–(c) correspond to different Target / Draft model pairs. All experiments use temperature 1 and draft length N=5 . Our Diversed achieves a higher acceptance rate and also maintains comparable quality. Additional results for temperatures 0 and 0.1 are reported in Appendix Tables 6 and 7 .
Figure 5: Diversed consistently accepts a larger average number of draft tokens per verification round than all baselines (draft length N=5 , temperature 1 ). Appendix Figure 7 shows result for temperature 0.1 .
Train/Test
Method
CNNDM
Dataset
Accept
ROUGE-2
Rate ( ↑ )
( ↑ )
CNNDM
SD
21.06 %
9.46
CNNDM/CNNDM
Diversed
69.96 %
12.11
GSM8K/CNNDM
Diversed
51.07 %
8.63
(a) Draft/Target: Llama-3.2-1B / Llama-3.1-8B
Table 2: Comparison of finetuned draft vs. Diversed at temperature 1 . Fine-tuned draft model yields higher acceptance rates but lower task performance.
Temperature
GSM8K
XSum
MBPP
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
Accuracy ( ↑ )
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
Pass@1 ( ↑ )
SD
1.0
44.60 %
67 %
20.44 %
7.09
26.30 %
53 %
SD (Finetuned draft)
66.44 %
67 %
35.41 %
6.95
47.07 %
53 %
Diversed (Ours)
72.61 %
67 %
70.53 %
7.23
85.03 %
53 %
(a) Draft/Target model pair is Llama-3.2-1B / Llama-3.1-8B.
SD
1.0
59.58 %
91 %
15.60 %
4.95
58.72 %
55 %
Table 3: Comparison of finetuned draft vs. Diversed at two temperatures T=1.0,0.1 . Columns are grouped by task. Each block compares SD, SD (Finetuned draft), and DIVERSED for a given Draft/Target pair. It shows fine-tuning does not reliably improve acceptance.
Figure 6: Acceptance rate decreases approximately linearly with the ensemble weight for static ensemble on CNNDM for the Target / Draft pair Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct/Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct at temperature 0 .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Notation
Definition
x0
Input prompt
N
Draft sequence length
x1:N
Sampled accepted token sequence
TN
Number of rejections when sampling a sequence of length N
Mq
Draft (small) model
Mp
Target (large) model
Appendix
Table 4: List of notations and their definitions.
CNNDM
XSUM
MBPP
GSM8K
Generation budget
128
128
384
512
Hyper Parameter λ
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.1
Draft length N
{3,5,7}
Rollout Number
4
Learning Rate
5e-4
Training Epochs
2
Appendix
Table 5: Hyper-parameter configuration for each benchmark dataset.
GSM8K
CNNDM
Xsum
MBPP
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
Quality Accuracy ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality pass@1 ( ↑ )
Autoregressive
NA
80 %
NA
11.29
NA
8.42
NA
62 %
SD
61.53 %
80 %
71.70 %
11.26
50.24 %
8.36
72.18 %
62 %
Static Ensemble
82.58 %
79 %
85.04 %
11.45
61.44 %
7.53
84.67 %
61 %
Diversed (ours)
84.82 %
80 %
81.92 %
12.37
94.81 %
7.66
85.03 %
62 %
(a) Target/Draft model pair is Llama-3.1-8B/Llama-3.2-1B.
Appendix
Table 6: Reported acceptance rate and generation quality. Columns are grouped by task. Each block compares three baselines and our method for a given Target / Draft pair. All results use temperature 0 and draft length N=5 . Our Diversed enjoys a higher acceptance rate and also maintains comparable quality to baselines.
GSM8K
CNNDM
XSum
MBPP
Method
Accept Rate ( ↑ )
Quality Accuracy ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality ROUGE-2 ( ↑ )
Accept Rate( ↑ )
Quality pass@1 ( ↑ )
Autoregressive
NA
76 %
NA
9.94
NA
7.56
NA
62 %
SD
66.41 %
76 %
17.69 %
9.92
37.67 %
7.82
72.94 %
61 %
SD (Lossy)
67.42 %
76 %
17.85 %
10.17
38.83 %
7.97
73.37 %
61 %
SpecCascade
68.01 %
76 %
52.20 %
10.19
40.22 %
7.53
84.15 %
61 %
Static Ensemble
72.36 %
75 %
87.58 %
10.46
51.20 %
7.31
80.66 %
61 %
Appendix
Table 7: Reported acceptance rate and generation quality, under different temperature. Columns are grouped by task. Each block compares three baselines and our method for a given Target / Draft pair. All results use a temperature of 0.1 and a draft length N=5 . Our Diversed enjoys a higher acceptance rate and also maintains comparable quality to baselines.
Figure 7: Average number of tokens accepted per verification round (temperature =0.1 , draft length N=5 ) across three target/draft model pairs. Our Diversed consistently surpasses all baselines by achieving a higher number of accepted tokens.
Figure 8: Results on the CNNDM, XSUM, MBPP, and GSM8k datasets for three target/draft pairs: normalized total time (lower is better) versus acceptance rate (higher is better) under speculative decoding with N=3 . Model pairs with higher acceptance achieve lower decoding time.
Figure 9: Results on the CNNDM, XSUM, MBPP, and GSM8k datasets for three target/draft pairs: normalized total time (lower is better) versus acceptance rate (higher is better) under speculative decoding with N=7 . Model pairs with higher acceptance achieve lower decoding time.
Figure 10: Our Diversed outperforms the Pareto front of the static ensemble and other baselines. Results are reported on the CNNDM dataset using the target/draft model pair: Qwen3-8B/Qwen3-0.6B and Gemma-3-12b-it/Gemma-3-4b-it, with temperature set to 0 .
Autoregressive decoding is bottlenecked by its sequential nature. Speculative decoding has become a standard way to accelerate inference by using a fast draft model to predict upcoming tokens from a slower target model, and then verifying them in parallel with a single target model forward pass. However, speculative decoding itself relies on a sequential dependence between speculation and verification. We introduce speculative speculative decoding (SSD) to parallelize these operations. While a verification is ongoing, the draft model predicts likely verification outcomes and prepares speculations pre-emptively for them. If the actual verification outcome is then in the predicted set, a speculation can be returned immediately, eliminating drafting overhead entirely. We identify three key challenges presented by speculative speculative decoding, and suggest principled methods to solve each. The result is Saguaro, an optimized SSD algorithm. Our implementation is on average 30% faster than optimized speculative decoding baselines and up to 5x faster than autoregressive decoding with open source inference engines.
Tanishq Kumar, Tri Dao, Avner May
Department of Computer Science, Stanford University · Department of Computer Science, Princeton University · Together AI
Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference by drafting multiple tokens for parallel verification, with efficiency critically determined by the speculative length selected at each decoding round. Existing dynamic speculation methods select the speculation length by estimating how many tokens will be accepted, which is reasonable for autoregressive drafters that generates tokens sequentially. The recent wave of diffusion-based drafters, however, generates candidate blocks in parallel at substantially lower drafting cost, shifting the key question from how many tokens to generate to how many generated tokens are worth verifying. We therefore reformulate dynamic speculative-length selection as expected-speedup optimization and derive a marginal criterion that extends the speculative sequence only when its acceptance gain outweighs the additional verification cost. Building on this criterion, we develop LibraSpec, a training-free and plug-and-play algorithm that iteratively determines the speculative length using drafter confidence scores. Theoretically, we prove that LibraSpec monotonically converges toward the optimal speculative length. Experiments across six target models, three diffusion-based speculative decoding methods, and math, coding, and chat benchmarks show consistent improvements under both greedy and sampling settings, achieving a further 0.5∼1.5× improvement over baselines and up to 8.49× speedup over autoregressive decoding.
Zexun Lin, Yuan Feng, Junlin Lv +2
Suzhou Institute for Advanced Research, University of Science and Technology of China Suzhou, Jiangsu, China
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