Speculative decoding accelerates language model inference by verifying multiple draft tokens in a single target-model pass. Recent parallel drafters have achieved breakthrough performance in frontier production models, but their effectiveness deteriorates as the entropy of target distributions increases due to insufficient draft diversity. To overcome this bottleneck without sacrificing parallelism, we introduce UBTree, a parallel drafter that couples a Unigram proposer with a Bigram selector to construct drafting Trees. The unigram proposer is trained with the standard cross-entropy objective to generate candidate tokens independently for each position, while a lightweight bigram selector predicts transition scores between adjacent candidate pairs. Unlike the proposer, the selector is trained with a renormalized KL objective on high-temperature data. This tree-native training broadens the supervision beyond the greedy path, encouraging plausible alternative branches that improve the chance of accepting additional tokens during tree verification. Across seven standardized benchmarks with Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B, UBTree achieves an average speedup of 5.84--6.94× over autoregressive decoding and outperforms DARTree in all 28 comparisons. Production-scale evaluation further demonstrates UBTree's advantage over frontier baselines such as DSpark.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Speedups on Qwen3-8B: Speedup over autoregressive decoding across seven benchmarks on Qwen3-8B instruct at Tinfer=1 . (b) Speedups on Qwen3.8-27B: Serving speedup in SGLang on Qwen3.8-27B at Tinfer=1 . (c) Long-context acceptance: Acceptance length τ on Ling3-Flash-124B for LongBench-v2 and SWE-bench over different context lengths. UBTree outperforms competing methods across most benchmarks and model scales.
Figure 2: Overview of UBTree. Left: UBTree Architecture. The unigram proposer generates top- K candidates at each draft position in parallel. The bigram selector scores adjacent candidate transitions in parallel, and tree construction uses these precomputed scores to build a verification tree. Right: Tree-native Training. Our training combines high-temperature target traces with renormalized KL supervision to encourage plausible alternative branches.
Instruct Models
Model
Method
Math
Code
Chat
GSM8K
M-500
AIME
HE
MBPP
LCB
MT-B
Avg.
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Qwen3-4B Tinfer=0
Single-path
DFlash (16)
5.95
8.57
5.76
8.34
4.45
6.34
4.28
6.08
4.03
5.82
3.83
5.39
2.69
4.60
4.43
6.45
Domino † (17)
8.02
10.12
7.14
9.01
5.97
7.49
5.66
7.02
5.59
7.11
5.33
6.86
3.28
5.12
5.86
7.53
Table 1: Speedup and average acceptance length ( τ ) on instruct and reasoning models. All τ values include the target-produced bonus token. M-500, HE, LCB, and MT-B denote MATH-500, HumanEval, LiveCodeBench, and MT-Bench. † values are paper-reported.
Model
Method
C=1
C=8
C=16
C=32
Qwen3-4B
Autoregressive baseline
253.5 / 1.00×
1404.9 / 1.00×
2208.3 / 1.00×
3307.4 / 1.00×
DFlash
796.4 / 3.14×
2287.2 / 1.63×
3664.4 / 1.66×
6071.9 / 1.84×
Domino
816.3 / 3.22×
2258.9 / 1.61×
3636.5 / 1.65×
6115.5 / 1.85×
DDTree
844.6 / 3.33×
2390.8 / 1.70×
3669.8 / 1.66×
4810.4 / 1.45×
DARTree (adaptive B/W )
978.5 / 3.86×
2405.1 / 1.71×
3770.3 / 1.71×
5619.9 / 1.70×
UBTree (adaptive B/W )
1089.1 / 4.30×
2797.4 / 1.99×
4271.9 / 1.93×
6560.4 / 1.98×
Table 2: Concurrent-serving results on Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B under Tinfer=1 . Each cell reports aggregate output tokens/s / speedup over the AR baseline row at the same concurrency.
Model
Method
Math
Code
Chat
GSM8K
M-500
AIME
HE
MBPP
LCB
MT-B
Avg.
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Ling3-Flash
DSpark
5.14
6.09
4.93
5.81
4.22
4.96
5.37
6.32
4.50
5.93
4.18
4.98
3.19
3.74
4.50
5.40
DFlash
4.85
5.73
4.83
5.58
4.17
4.80
5.11
6.00
4.39
5.55
3.97
4.63
3.11
3.58
4.35
5.12
UBTree
5.83
7.37
5.87
7.18
5.43
6.60
5.94
7.42
5.00
6.85
5.22
6.54
4.24
5.27
5.36
6.75
Qwen3.8-27B
DSpark
5.20
6.74
4.76
6.07
4.41
5.65
5.18
6.85
4.26
5.79
3.47
4.53
3.00
3.82
4.32
5.64
Table 3: Speedup and acceptance length ( τ ) on production-scale models. Each benchmark reports speedup and average acceptance length, and the Avg. columns are means over all benchmarks. M-500, HE, LCB, and MT-B denote MATH-500, HumanEval, LiveCodeBench, and MT-Bench.
Math
Code
Chat
GSM8K
M-500
AIME
HE
MBPP
LCB
MT-B
Avg.
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
DFlash 2 selector + Tree
7.58
11.08
7.42
10.87
6.13
8.98
5.88
8.48
5.64
8.44
5.40
7.77
3.60
6.15
5.95
8.82
UBTree selector + Tree
8.16
12.11
7.83
11.67
6.79
10.06
6.73
9.61
6.21
9.54
6.04
8.78
4.26
7.23
6.57
9.86
+Ttrain=1
8.54
12.58
8.18
12.15
6.92
10.13
7.07
10.22
6.66
9.98
6.37
9.24
4.39
7.32
6.88
10.23
Table 4: Selector, training-temperature, and training-objective ablations on Qwen3-4B with thinking disabled. Top: speedup and acceptance length ( τ ) at Tinfer=0 . Middle: acceptance length across training and inference temperatures, with the same checkpoints evaluated in both panels. Bottom: training-objective ablation with the fixed architecture and training temperature.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Proposer training
6 epochs
Joint proposer–selector training
2 epochs
Selector rank
256
Codebook MLP hidden width
1024
Training candidate support size
256
Draft depth
15 future positions plus an anchor
Appendix
Table 5: UBTree configuration for the academic-scale experiments, unless otherwise specified. The verification budget excludes the anchor.
Benchmark
Examples / dialogues
GSM8K
128
MATH-500
128
AIME
30
HumanEval
128
MBPP
128
LiveCodeBench
128
Appendix
Table 6: Evaluation subset sizes. MT-Bench contains two-turn dialogues; the other counts refer to individual examples.
Method
Proposer stage
Draft post-processing
Verification
Other
Total
τ
ms/token
DARTree
3.51
3.36
20.94
1.64
29.47
12.50
2.41
UBTree
3.41
1.38
20.88
1.61
27.30
12.58
2.21
Appendix
Table 7: Drafting Latency profiling on Qwen3-4B. Stage and total latencies are in ms per verification round.
Prompt tokens
≤32 K
32–64K
64–96K
96–128K
128–192K
192–260K
Overall
Requests
109
71
47
69
73
32
401
DSpark
4.248
4.297
3.795
3.976
4.166
4.084
4.136
DFlash
4.020
4.046
3.578
3.678
3.944
3.919
3.898
UBTree
5.833
5.870
5.326
5.351
5.798
5.804
5.693
Appendix
Table 8: Acceptance length ( τ ) on LongBench-v2 with Ling3-Flash, grouped by request-start prompt length. All methods use the same 401 requests. The Overall column reports results over the full evaluation subset. Bold marks the best acceptance length per column.
Accumulated tokens
≤0
0–4K
4–8K
8–16K
16–32K
32–64K
64–131K
Overall
Covered cases
30
30
28
27
23
13
2
30
DSpark
3.718
3.743
4.023
3.998
4.089
4.023
3.965
3.981
DFlash
3.442
3.524
3.795
3.709
3.836
3.805
3.770
3.737
UBTree
4.842
4.829
5.447
5.389
5.516
5.408
5.465
5.341
Appendix
Table 9: Acceptance length ( τ ) on SWE-bench with Ling3-Flash, grouped by accumulated prompt tokens relative to the first request in each case. Covered cases gives the number of cases represented in each bin. The Overall column reports request-pooled acceptance length over all 1,482 requests from 30 cases. Bold marks the best acceptance length per column.
Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference through a draft-then-verify paradigm. Building on this, tree-structured methods improve inference by organizing proposals into multiple candidate paths, increasing the accepted length. However, existing tree-structured methods use a single drafter for all drafting steps, creating a dilemma: a smaller drafter is fast but yields lower-quality trees, whereas a larger drafter improves tree quality but suffers from high latency. To address this, we propose TreeGraft, a multi-drafter framework in which drafters of different costs jointly construct a shared draft tree. TreeGraft uses the stronger drafter to rescore candidates by updating scores assigned by the weaker drafter, reselect grafting positions, and recover promising paths left unexplored. It also integrates stronger drafter expansions non-destructively, preserving existing branches that may still be accepted by the target model. Together, these designs improve the quality of the shared draft tree. To control the drafting cost, TreeGraft introduces a lightweight scheduler distilled from an offline value system to decide when to call the stronger drafter. Across 10 model pairs and 6 benchmarks, TreeGraft outperforms the better of the two fixed single-drafter endpoint strategies by 15.1% on average, reaching a maximum gain of 26.6%. Our code is available at https://github.com/fjm9933/TreeGraft.
Jiaming Fan, Daming Cao, Canchen Huang +6
Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications (Southeast University), Ministry of Education, China · Southeast University · Ant Group +1
Speculative decoding accelerates language-model inference by letting a cheap drafter propose tokens that the target model verifies in parallel. Recent block drafters make drafting nearly free: a single backbone pass emits an entire block of draft tokens. Draft trees promise a further gain -- several alternative continuations verified in one target forward -- but existing constructions rank candidates by per-position marginals that ignore which parent a candidate extends, so on semi-autoregressive drafters wider trees mostly add mis-ranked nodes; and a tree of fixed size ignores how much speculation each decoding round, and each serving load, can support. We introduce TreeSpark, which reads a parent-conditioned distribution from the drafter's existing Markov head at negligible cost, calibrates it into an edge-acceptance estimate, and lets path survival govern everything else: best-first expansion, per-round stopping, and a load-adaptive serving policy. Sampling siblings without replacement, with matching residuals in recursive rejection, keeps decoding lossless at any temperature. Adaptive trees improve on matched fixed budgets at every temperature; against a tuned chain on the same drafter, TreeSpark accepts 15-25% more draft tokens per round and decodes 8-14% faster in single-request wall-clock, and under rising load it gracefully shrinks the tree back to the chain. Code and artifacts: https://github.com/PopSoda2002/TreeSpark
Huapeng Zhou, Huayu Wang, Xinyu Wang
Boson AI · University of Washington · McGill University
Speculative decoding has significantly accelerated Large Language Model (LLM) inference by alleviating memory-bound bottlenecks. However, traditional speculative decoding typically relies on auxiliary draft modules, incurring significant training and communication overhead. Although recent methods attempt to generate drafts within the target model itself, they often fail to fully exploit its latent parallel capacity due to a lack of structural coordination. In this paper, we propose Progressive Tree Drafting (PTD), which employs a structured, guided parallel drafting strategy to harness the model's parallel potential. By coupling a progressive tree structure with a stepwise pruning mechanism, PTD actively guides the LLM to explore multiple semantic paths in a single forward pass, ensuring both draft diversity and coherence. Experiments demonstrate that PTD achieves up to 2× decoding speedup across various benchmarks while remaining training-free and model-agnostic. Our code is available at: https://github.com/MINE-USTC/PTD.
Zipeng Gao, Zhi Zheng, Qingrong Xia +5
1State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, University of Science and Technology of China · 2Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.