Speculative decoding accelerates large language model inference with a small drafter, whose per-guess acceptance rate determines the achievable speedup. Feature-level drafters share a design choice: every token, easy or hard, is drafted under a single forward pass. Many of the tokens the target rejects are ones the drafter is itself unsure about yet the target answers decisively. To address this, we introduce Parallel Reconsideration: guided by its own uncertainty, the drafter reconsiders its hesitant guesses with extra passes that run in parallel with the one-pass draft, adding negligible latency. A co-designed training recipe and serving-time drafting algorithm append these reconsidered guesses to the original draft tree as refined candidates. Across models and benchmarks, on average, Parallel Reconsideration improves over the baselines by 5.3% to 10.2% on acceptance length and by 3.5% to 9.2% on speedup.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Two observations on where an EAGLE-style drafter loses acceptance. ( 1(a) ) Acceptance rate versus the drafter’s own top- 1 confidence, which falls from 95.6% on confident positions to 7.3% on the least confident. ( 1(b) ) Drafter confidence against target confidence over the rejected tokens (% of the reject pool): the drafter is unsure on 62.1% of them, and 17.0% of the pool is unsure at a decisive target ( cpt≥0.9 ).
Figure 2: Co-forwarding reconsideration on the draft tree. Each token produces a feature (diamond) from which the next token is sampled ( ∼ ); the one-pass draft (gray, level 0 ) forms the main branches, and tree width comes free because a node’s top- k children are all sampled from its single feature. The reconsideration pass (blue, level 1 ) deepens a node’s feature within the same batched forward as the next draft step so it proposes a corrected token (here x2′ ) with no extra sequential draft step. The one-pass draft still reaches x4 while the reconsidered branch grows in parallel.
Math
Code
Chat
GSM8K
MATH-500
AIME25
HumanEval
MBPP
LCB
MT-Bench
Avg.
Model
Method
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
Temperature =0
Llama-3.1-8B
EAGLE-3.1 (24)
4.41
1.90 ×
4.70
2.14 ×
5.41
2.29 ×
5.15
2.25 ×
4.97
2.24 ×
4.31
1.78 ×
4.20
1.69 ×
4.74
2.04 ×
PR (24)
4.73
2.03 ×
4.77
2.16 ×
5.36
2.28 ×
5.45
2.38 ×
5.28
2.37 ×
4.78
1.95 ×
4.65
1.85 ×
5.00
2.15 ×
Δ
+7.3%
+6.8%
+1.5%
+0.9%
−0.9%
−0.4%
+5.8%
+5.8%
+6.2%
+5.8%
+10.9%
+9.6%
+10.7%
+9.5%
+5.5%
+5.4%
Table 1: Acceptance length τ and decoding speedup over autoregressive decoding. Parenthesized values give the total draft budget B (number of draft nodes verified per round), held equal for both methods along with the offer width, grow width, and number of draft steps. Δ rows give the relative gain of PR over EAGLE-3.1 at the same budget.
Batch size n
1
2
4
8
16
Llama
GSM8K
EAGLE-3.1
2.05 ×
1.68 ×
1.62 ×
1.26 ×
1.12 ×
PR
2.26 ×
1.91 ×
1.91 ×
1.46 ×
1.22 ×
MT-Bench
EAGLE-3.1
2.03 ×
1.71 ×
1.71 ×
1.50 ×
1.41 ×
PR
2.05 ×
1.79 ×
1.77 ×
1.56 ×
1.51 ×
LCB
EAGLE-3.1
1.95 ×
1.61 ×
1.60 ×
1.40 ×
1.31 ×
Table 2: Speedup as requests are batched. Wall-clock speedup of EAGLE-3.1 and Parallel Reconsideration (PR) over autoregressive decoding at a matched batch size n , measured on the same serving engine ( B=48 , temperature 0 ).
GSM8K
LiveCodeBench
MBPP
Avg.
Drafter
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
EAGLE-3.1
4.84
2.05 ×
4.70
1.95 ×
5.32
2.33 ×
4.95
2.11 ×
Parallel Reconsideration
5.40
2.26 ×
5.11
2.11 ×
5.57
2.41 ×
5.36
2.26 ×
no balance term ( β=0 )
5.17
2.14 ×
5.03
2.04 ×
5.58
2.41 ×
5.26
2.20 ×
Δ
−4.3%
−5.3%
−1.6%
−3.3%
+0.2%
+0.0%
−1.9%
−2.8%
no self-query ( Q→e(tp) )
5.03
2.10 ×
4.92
2.02 ×
5.47
2.35 ×
5.14
2.16 ×
Table 3: Removing each design choice, and spending the compute on depth instead. Llama-3.1-8B at B=48 , temperature 0 , reporting τ / speedup. The first two rows remove one component of Parallel Reconsideration and retrain; the third is EAGLE-3.1 with a second decoder layer and no reconsideration, spending its additional capacity on every position rather than on the uncertain ones. Δ is relative to Parallel Reconsideration.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Reconsidering in parallel. Diamonds are features produced by a forward pass of the shared block M and circles are the tokens sampled from them; gray marks ordinary one-pass drafting (feature fi , token xi ) and blue marks reconsideration (deepened feature fi′ , reconsidered token xi′ ). Top (sequential): running reconsideration in series spends a forward of M that advances no new position, so within a fixed draft budget the drafter reaches fewer tokens. Bottom (co-forward): reconsideration of a position depends only on its one-pass feature, which is already available, so it is co-forwarded with the ordinary draft step in a single batched pass of M . The one-pass chain still reaches x3 and the reconsidered token x2′ is obtained for negligible additional latency.
GSM8K
LiveCodeBench
MT-Bench
Avg.
Drafter
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
EAGLE-3.1 ( Bw=6 )
5.44
2.81 ×
5.54
3.13 ×
3.40
1.64 ×
4.79
2.53 ×
+ advance 3 more
5.51
2.83 ×
5.68
3.17 ×
3.43
1.64 ×
4.87
2.55 ×
Δ
+1.3%
+0.7%
+2.5%
+1.3%
+0.9%
+0.0%
+1.7%
+0.8%
widen to Bw=9
5.49
2.82 ×
5.61
3.15 ×
3.42
1.64 ×
4.84
2.54 ×
Δ
+0.9%
+0.4%
+1.3%
+0.6%
+0.6%
+0.0%
+1.0%
+0.4%
Appendix
Table 4: Reconsidering the additional nodes against drafting wider with them. Gemma-3-12B at B=48 , temperature 1 , reporting τ / speedup. The two EAGLE-3.1 controls batch 9 nodes per draft step: the first takes 3 nodes of the previous step’s batch, matching where reconsideration draws from, and forwards each one’s best not-yet-forwarded one-pass child (a new sibling branch); the second widens the grow width outright, so all 9 nodes extend the current frontier, which is more drafting breadth than Parallel Reconsideration itself gets. Parallel Reconsideration with m=0 runs our full serving path with no node ever reconsidered and batches the same 6 nodes as EAGLE-3.1; adding 3 reconsidered nodes brings it to 9 . Δ is relative to EAGLE-3.1.
τ
Speedup
B
Bw
k
EAGLE-3.1
PR
Δτ
EAGLE-3.1
PR
Total budget
24
6
6
4.39
4.83
+0.44
1.94 ×
2.11 ×
32
6
6
4.606
4.869
+0.263
2.077 ×
2.208 ×
48 ∗
6
6
4.835
5.127
+0.292
2.184 ×
2.291 ×
64
6
6
4.961
5.222
+0.261
2.195 ×
2.280 ×
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity to the tree configuration. Acceptance length τ and speedup over autoregressive decoding for EAGLE-3.1 and Parallel Reconsideration (PR) under identical budgets, varying one of the total budget B , grow width Bw and offer width k at a time around our default ( B=48 , Bw=6 , k=6 , marked ∗ and repeated in each block); γ=8 and m=3 throughout, on Qwen3-8B, GSM8K, temperature 0 . Δτ is PR minus EAGLE-3.1. Bold marks the best value per column.
Math
Code
Chat
GSM8K
MATH-500
AIME25
HumanEval
MBPP
LCB
MT-Bench
Avg.
Method
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
τ
Speedup
HASS
4.81
2.03 ×
4.84
2.11 ×
5.21
2.27 ×
5.59
2.38 ×
5.34
2.38 ×
4.68
1.90 ×
4.64
1.97 ×
5.02
2.15 ×
HASS + PR
5.17
2.12 ×
5.21
2.21 ×
5.88
2.49 ×
5.86
2.45 ×
5.67
2.44 ×
4.99
1.98 ×
4.97
2.02 ×
5.39
2.24 ×
Δ
+7.6%
+4.6%
+7.7%
+4.6%
+12.7%
+9.6%
+4.7%
+2.9%
+6.0%
+2.4%
+6.6%
+3.9%
+7.2%
+2.6%
+7.5%
+4.4%
Appendix
Table 6: Parallel Reconsideration on top of HASS. Acceptance length τ and speedup over autoregressive decoding on Llama-3.1-8B at temperature 0 , both drafters taken at the same training checkpoint and served under the tree configuration of Table 1 ( B=48 ). Δ is the relative gain of adding reconsideration to HASS.
target confidence cpt
drafter cpd
<0.5
0.5 – 0.9
≥0.9
all
recovered, % of bucket (bucket’s share of pool)
<0.5
17.7% (18.5%)
29.5% (26.6%)
39.7% (17.0%)
28.8% (62.1%)
0.5 – 0.9
11.3% (6.7%)
23.4% (13.6%)
42.0% (15.1%)
29.0% (35.4%)
≥0.9
3.7% (0.4%)
6.9% (1.3%)
27.1% (0.8%)
12.9% (2.5%)
all
16.4% (25.6%)
26.7% (41.5%)
39.9% (32.9%)
28.5% (100%)
Appendix
Table 7: What reconsideration recovers, by bucket. Top: percentage of each bucket’s rejected tokens that Parallel Reconsideration gets right, with the bucket’s share of the reject pool in parentheses. Buckets are the cpd×cpt bands of Section 2.2 . Bottom: mean change in top- 1 probability against the position’s own one-pass distribution, on the tokens reconsideration recovers and on those it does not.
Category
Benchmark
Prompts
Source
Chat
MT-Bench
80
FastChat mt_bench
Math
GSM8K
1,319
openai/gsm8k (main)
MATH-500
500
HuggingFaceH4/MATH-500
AIME25
30
math-ai/aime25
Code
HumanEval
164
openai/openai_humaneval
MBPP
500
google-research-datasets/mbpp (full)
Appendix
Table 8: Evaluation benchmarks. Each is evaluated on its full set.
B
Bw
N
EAGLE-3.1
PR
measured
serial drafting
tcycle
tcycle
whole-cycle ratio
(γ+N)/γ
48
6
3
26.03
26.60
1.022 ×
1.375 ×
24
6
3
25.55
25.94
1.015 ×
1.375 ×
Appendix
Table 9: Per-cycle cost of co-forwarding on Qwen3-8B. Measured ratio of tcycle=τ/throughput (time per verification step), Parallel Reconsideration over EAGLE-3.1 run for run at temperature 0 ; this is a whole-cycle ratio (drafting plus verification). With γ=8 draft steps and N reconsidered positions per draft, serializing would stretch drafting by (γ+N)/γ (Section 3.4 ), an upper bound on the serial whole-cycle ratio. Co-forwarding keeps the measured ratio near 1 .
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 LLM inference by verifying multiple drafted tokens in parallel, allowing a single target forward pass to accept several tokens. By construction, verification computes representations for both accepted and rejected tokens. Yet, conventional drafters retain only the representations of accepted tokens, leaving the substantial verifier computation spent on rejected tokens effectively wasted. We find that these discarded hidden states generated during target forward retain useful information about future tokens that can improve subsequent drafts. However, realizing this opportunity poses two distinct challenges. At inference, recycling overhead can increase drafting latency, diminishing the speedup gained from increased acceptance length. During training, standard parallel drafter training does not produce inference-aligned rejected states, while obtaining them through sequential rollouts would sacrifice parallelism across training positions. We introduce Carryover Drafting, which addresses both challenges. Carryover recycles rejected target hidden states as temporary KV context, allowing the drafter to selectively attend to them. It reuses the drafter's existing interface and adds only a single learned embedding to distinguish rejected states from committed context. The additional KV context is replaced each drafting round, keeping its length bounded by one proposal block. We introduce parallel draft--verify--draft training that exposes the drafter to inference-aligned rejected states while preserving parallelism across training positions. Experiments with DFlash and a DSpark-derived semi-autoregressive drafter across two target models show that this simple Carryover mechanism improves average acceptance length by 6.5--14.7% and end-to-end vLLM speedup by 7.9--14.4% over the corresponding baselines, with speedup gains reaching 28.8% on translation.
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