Copy-as-Decode: Grammar-Constrained Parallel Prefill for LLM Editing

Ziyang Liu

cs.CLApr 20, 2026

Copy-as-Decode: Grammar-Constrained Parallel Prefill for LLM Editing

Authors: Ziyang Liu

Organizations: Independent Researcher

Abstract

LLMs edit text and code by autoregressively regenerating the full output, even when most tokens appear verbatim in the input. We study Copy-as-Decode, a decoding-layer mechanism that recasts edit generation as structured decoding over a two-primitive grammar: <copy lines="i-j"/> references an input line range, <gen>...</gen> emits new content. A token-level FSM guarantees syntactic validity, and a serving-layer primitive updates the KV cache for each copy span via a single parallel-prefill forward rather than $N$ autoregressive steps -- sharing the parallel-forward kernel of speculative decoding but with input tokens as the draft and program-enforced acceptance replacing probabilistic verification. We report an upper-bound analysis that requires no end-to-end training. (i) Kernel speedup: on Qwen2.5-{1.5B, 7B}, copying $N$ tokens via parallel prefill is $6.8\times$ -- $303\times$ faster than autoregressive ( $N \in [8, 512]$ , A100 80GB bf16). (ii) Copy ceiling: on ProbeEdit and HumanEvalPack-Fix (Py/JS), $74$ -- $98\%$ of gold tokens are reachable under the line-level primitive; composed with the empirical kernel over each corpus's span histogram this yields a closed-form wall-clock bound of $29.0\times / 3.4\times / 4.2\times$ ( $13.0\times$ pooled). A token-level extension reaches $91$ -- $99\%$ coverage with $4.5\times$ -- $6.5\times$ floors. (iii) Pipeline losslessness: oracle programs round-trip through the deterministic resolver on all $482$ cases, localizing any downstream failure to span selection rather than the mechanism. A perturbation study shows pooled EM drops from $100\%$ to $15.48\%$ under off-by-one noise. A fine-tuning pilot on Qwen2.5-Coder-1.5B lifts HEvalFix-Py EM from $0/33$ (untrained) to $12$ -- $17\%$ , a learnability signal, not a production selector. Batched-serving integration and multi-file coverage are scoped as follow-up.

Explore similar work

Sep 3, 2026cs.CL

CROCODIL: Cross-Model Code Editing with LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) have become ubiquitous tools for code generation and editing. However, development teams often use multiple LLM assistants. Different developers may prefer different models, and individual developers may switch between models across different coding sessions. Because of this, the edits any one model makes are frequently applied to foreign code originally generated by another model. These LLMs are often trained on different datasets, and as a result have different stylistic preferences. Do LLMs behave differently when they edit foreign code originally written by a different LLM with a different coding style? We find that models tend to make more, and often excessive, edits on foreign code. We introduce CROCODIL (Cross-model Code Editing with LLMs), a post-training framework for reducing excessive edits while preserving functional correctness. CROCODIL's similarity reward penalizes large changes, while its execution reward scores build and test success. We use the product of these two rewards to encourage the policy to decrease the edit size without decreasing the edit task success rate. CROCODIL is available at https://github.com/EngineeringSoftware/Crocodil.

Linghan Zhong, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa +2

Large Language

Ask PDF

Jul 27, 2026cs.SE

Learning from 53.6K Real-World Developer Edits of AI-Generated Code

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Jenny T. Liang, Mihika Bairathi, Wayne Chi +3

AI Code Generation Code Completion Global Editing

Ask PDF

Aug 1, 2026cs.AI

CURE: Local Uncertainty Repair for Block-Parallel Speculative Decoding

Speculative decoding mitigates the latency of sequential generation in autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) by interleaving draft generation with target verification. However, existing parallel drafting backends often suffer from rapid accuracy degradation over long horizons, leading to high rejection rates during verification and suboptimal wall-clock speedups. We observe that drafting errors are not uniformly distributed but typically stem from localized high-uncertainty tokens that destabilize downstream generation trajectories. Motivated by this token error pattern, we propose CURE, a budget-aware dynamic repair tree designed to repair errors at uncertainty focal points without incurring prohibitive tree-verification overheads. Specifically, our method uses predictive confidence margins to dynamically locate candidate error tokens within a block-parallel draft, expands bounded repair paths only at these fragile nodes, and employs a novel repair resynchronization mechanism to realign draft states post-verification. Evaluations on code-generation benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, and LiveCodeBench-lite) and mathematical reasoning benchmark (GSM8K) demonstrate that CURE increases the average accepted length by 4.2-7.5% over parallel baselines without repair, translating to an end-to-end speedup of

2.66-3.49\times

over target-only decoding. Furthermore, we provide a plug-and-play repair module compatible with standard parallel drafting frameworks. We also characterize the trade-off between draft compute and verification efficiency.

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng, Fangxin Liu +1

Speculative Decoding Parallel Decoding and Training Large Language Model Generation LLM Inference Efficiency

Ask PDF