pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.29223 · v1 · pith:OQQFD2CDnew · submitted 2026-06-28 · 💻 cs.LG

Depth Exploration for LLM Decoding

Weisi Yang , Zipeng Sun , Stephen Xia This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 08:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords depth explorationLLM decodingearly exitlossless accelerationparallel inferenceautoregressive generationdepth-adaptive methods
0
0 comments X

The pith

DEX replaces single-depth selection with parallel exploration over multiple candidate depths to reduce per-token computation while producing identical outputs to standard autoregressive decoding.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that existing lossless depth-adaptive decoding methods, which pick one early exit depth and verify it at full depth, leave headroom because late choices waste layers and early choices cause fallbacks that discard work. DEX addresses this by running parallel exploration across several depths at each step, validating every candidate against the final-depth reference, committing the final-depth token, and collapsing the lattice to retain only reusable states. This expand-commit-collapse cycle keeps outputs exactly equivalent to full autoregressive generation. A reader would care because the method turns the depth dimension from a source of waste into a controllable source of savings that improves as more depths are considered.

Core claim

DEX is a lossless decoding algorithm that replaces single-depth selection with parallel exploration over multiple candidate depths. At each commit position, DEX validates candidates against the final-depth reference, commits exactly the final-depth token, and collapses the exploration lattice to retain only reusable branch states. This procedure preserves equivalence to standard autoregressive decoding while reducing the cost of committing each token.

What carries the argument

The expand-commit-collapse procedure operating on an exploration lattice of candidate depth branches.

If this is right

  • DEX outperforms representative depth-selection baselines across both early-exit-trained and standard LLMs.
  • End-to-end throughput becomes competitive with speculative and distributed decoding methods.
  • Performance improves as the explored depths become finer.
  • Parallel depth exploration provides a scalable way to exploit the underused depth axis of LLM decoding.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The lattice-collapse step could be adapted to manage state in other parallel inference techniques such as tree-based speculative decoding.
  • Hardware accelerators that evaluate multiple layer depths concurrently might multiply the observed savings.
  • Similar exploration strategies might apply to other redundant axes like attention head count or KV-cache reuse.
  • Finer depth grids could be used to identify model-specific sweet spots for the width of exploration.

Load-bearing premise

The expand-commit-collapse procedure can be implemented with net savings while preserving exact equivalence to standard autoregressive decoding.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of average compute per generated token showing DEX requires more operations than vanilla full-depth autoregressive decoding on the same model and inputs would falsify the efficiency claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.29223 by Stephen Xia, Weisi Yang, Zipeng Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of different depth exploitation. (Left) Autoregressive decoding always [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: DEX execution with four depth explorers. (Left) Candidate branches are unrolled on a depth–position lattice, where the anchor path reaches the final depth while descendant branches are precomputed for potential reuse. (Right) The FSM records the explorer round, materialized buffer entries, and collapse transition after the final-depth reference determines the committed token. depth exploration as a depth–p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Depth-axis throughput comparison on LS-CodeLlama-34B (left) and LS-Llama-2-70B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling behavior and architectural analysis of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: End-to-end decoding throughput comparison across CodeLlama-34B, Llama-2-70B, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of stable EAD across different datasets on Llama2-70B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Autoregressive LLM decoding evaluates every generated token through the full layer stack, even though many tokens become predictable at intermediate depths. Existing lossless depth-adaptive methods exploit this redundancy by choosing a single non-final exit depth and verifying its prediction with the final-depth model. However, our measurements show that this selection-based strategy leaves substantial headroom: choosing an exit too late wastes computation, while choosing one too early triggers fallback and discards dependent drafts. We propose Depth Exploration Decoding (DEX), a lossless decoding algorithm that replaces single-depth selection with parallel exploration over multiple candidate depths. At each commit position, DEX validates candidates against the final-depth reference, commits exactly the final-depth token, and collapses the exploration lattice to retain only reusable branch states. This expand--commit--collapse procedure preserves equivalence to standard autoregressive decoding while reducing the cost of committing each token. Across early-exit-trained and standard LLMs, DEX outperforms representative depth-selection baselines and achieves competitive end-to-end throughput against speculative and distributed decoding methods. Moreover, DEX improves as the explored depths become finer, showing that parallel depth exploration provides a scalable way to exploit the underused depth axis of LLM decoding.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Depth Exploration Decoding (DEX), a lossless algorithm for LLM decoding that replaces single-depth selection with parallel exploration over multiple candidate depths. It uses an expand-commit-collapse procedure to validate candidates against the final-depth reference, commit the final-depth token, and collapse the exploration lattice, preserving equivalence to standard autoregressive decoding while reducing computation cost. The paper claims that DEX outperforms depth-selection baselines, achieves competitive throughput against speculative and distributed methods, and improves with finer depth exploration across early-exit-trained and standard LLMs.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, this work demonstrates a scalable approach to exploiting the depth dimension in LLM inference, which has been underused. The preservation of exact equivalence is a strength, and the improvement with finer depths suggests potential for further gains. It positions parallel depth exploration as a viable alternative or complement to existing acceleration techniques.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'our measurements show that this selection-based strategy leaves substantial headroom' and that DEX 'outperforms representative depth-selection baselines' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the abstract provides no quantitative results, model sizes, datasets, or error bars; the full experimental section must supply these to substantiate the headroom and outperformance assertions.
  2. [Algorithm description (likely §3)] The expand--commit--collapse procedure is asserted to preserve exact equivalence to autoregressive decoding, but the manuscript must demonstrate (e.g., via an invariant or small example in the algorithm section) that the collapse step never discards states required for future tokens, as any hidden recomputation would undermine the claimed net savings.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract states DEX 'improves as the explored depths become finer' but does not define the granularity schedule or the set of depths tested; this should be stated explicitly with a table or figure reference for reproducibility.
  2. Comparison tables against speculative and distributed decoding should report both latency and throughput with the same batch size and hardware to allow direct assessment of the 'competitive end-to-end throughput' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive recommendation. We address the two major comments point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'our measurements show that this selection-based strategy leaves substantial headroom' and that DEX 'outperforms representative depth-selection baselines' is load-bearing for the central contribution, yet the abstract provides no quantitative results, model sizes, datasets, or error bars; the full experimental section must supply these to substantiate the headroom and outperformance assertions.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from concrete quantitative support for the central claims. The experimental section already reports results across multiple model sizes, datasets, and baselines with the requested details (including error bars where applicable). We will revise the abstract to include a small number of representative quantitative findings that directly substantiate the headroom and outperformance statements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Algorithm description (likely §3)] The expand--commit--collapse procedure is asserted to preserve exact equivalence to autoregressive decoding, but the manuscript must demonstrate (e.g., via an invariant or small example in the algorithm section) that the collapse step never discards states required for future tokens, as any hidden recomputation would undermine the claimed net savings.

    Authors: We accept the request for an explicit demonstration. In the revised manuscript we will add both a short worked example (on a 4-token toy sequence) and a formal invariant in §3: after each collapse, the retained states are exactly the prefixes up to the committed token that were validated at final depth; all future-token dependencies are therefore preserved without requiring recomputation. This addition will make the equivalence argument self-contained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper proposes an algorithmic procedure (expand-commit-collapse) for depth-adaptive LLM decoding and reports empirical throughput measurements against baselines. No equations, first-principles derivations, or predictions appear in the supplied text; the central claim is that the procedure preserves exact autoregressive equivalence while reducing per-token cost, which is asserted as a property of the algorithm itself rather than derived from fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, and the measurements are presented as external validation rather than internal fits renamed as predictions. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained as an engineering proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only input provides insufficient detail to enumerate free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; no explicit modeling choices or new entities are described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5723 in / 975 out tokens · 20461 ms · 2026-06-30T08:41:17.416643+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Schlank, Gabriel Stanovsky, and Ariel Goldstein

    Daria Lioubashevski, Tomer M. Schlank, Gabriel Stanovsky, and Ariel Goldstein. Looking beyond the top-1: Transformers determine top tokens in order. InForty-second Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=2B11W1Z6ID

    2025

  2. [2]

    Do language models use their depth efficiently? InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2026

    Róbert Csordás, Christopher D Manning, and Christopher Potts. Do language models use their depth efficiently? InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2026. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=Kz6eUL86XP

    2026

  3. [3]

    Depth-adaptive transformer

    Maha Elbayad, Jiatao Gu, Edouard Grave, and Michael Auli. Depth-adaptive transformer. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=SJg7KhVKPH

    2020

  4. [4]

    Tran, Yi Tay, and Donald Metzler

    Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, Jai Gupta, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, Vinh Q. Tran, Yi Tay, and Donald Metzler. Confident adaptive language modeling. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors,Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=uLYc4L3C81A

    2022

  5. [5]

    EE-LLM: Large-scale training and inference of early-exit large language models with 3d parallelism

    Yanxi Chen, Xuchen Pan, Yaliang Li, Bolin Ding, and Jingren Zhou. EE-LLM: Large-scale training and inference of early-exit large language models with 3d parallelism. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=xFk0w9zoV3

    2024

  6. [6]

    Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’23. JMLR.org, 2023

    2023

  7. [7]

    LayerSkip: Enabling early exit inference and self-speculative decoding

    Mostafa Elhoushi, Akshat Shrivastava, Diana Liskovich, Basil Hosmer, Bram Wasti, Liangzhen Lai, Anas Mahmoud, Bilge Acun, Saurabh Agarwal, Ahmed Roman, Ahmed Aly, Beidi Chen, and Carole-Jean Wu. LayerSkip: Enabling early exit inference and self-speculative decoding. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual M...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.681 2024

  8. [8]

    Adadecode: Accelerating llm decoding with adaptive layer parallelism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03700, 2025

    Zhepei Wei, Wei-Lin Chen, Xinyu Zhu, and Yu Meng. Adadecode: Accelerating llm decoding with adaptive layer parallelism.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03700, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    DEL: Context-aware dynamic exit layer for efficient self-speculative decoding

    Hossein Entezari Zarch, Lei Gao, Chaoyi Jiang, and Murali Annavaram. DEL: Context-aware dynamic exit layer for efficient self-speculative decoding. InSecond Conference on Language Modeling, 2025. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=cAFxSuXQvT

    2025

  10. [10]

    Weinberger and J

    A. Weinberger and J. L. Smith. A logic for high-speed addition.National Bureau of Standards Circular, 591:3–12, 1958

    1958

  11. [11]

    A parallel algorithm for the efficient solution of a general class of recurrence equations.IEEE transactions on computers, 100(8):786–793, 1973

    Peter M Kogge and Harold S Stone. A parallel algorithm for the efficient solution of a general class of recurrence equations.IEEE transactions on computers, 100(8):786–793, 1973

    1973

  12. [12]

    Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax

    Eric Jang, Shixiang Gu, and Ben Poole. Categorical reparameterization with gumbel-softmax. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2017. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=rkE3y85ee

    2017

  13. [13]

    Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code

    Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Romain Sauvestre, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Faisal Azhar, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Nico...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jing Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian...

    2021

  18. [18]

    Don't Give Me the Details, Just the Summary! Topic-Aware Convolutional Neural Networks for Extreme Summarization

    Shashi Narayan, Shay B. Cohen, and Mirella Lapata. Don’t give me the details, just the summary! topic-aware convolutional neural networks for extreme summarization.ArXiv, abs/1808.08745, 2018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML’24. JMLR.org, 2024

    2024

  20. [20]

    PEARL: Parallel speculative decoding with adaptive draft length

    Tianyu Liu, Yun Li, Qitan Lv, Kai Liu, Jianchen Zhu, Winston Hu, and Xiao Sun. PEARL: Parallel speculative decoding with adaptive draft length. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=QOXrVMiHGK

    2025

  21. [21]

    EAGLE-2: Faster inference of language models with dynamic draft trees

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. EAGLE-2: Faster inference of language models with dynamic draft trees. InEmpirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 2024

    2024

  22. [22]

    EAGLE-3: Scaling up inference acceleration of large language models via training-time test

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. EAGLE-3: Scaling up inference acceleration of large language models via training-time test. InAnnual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Mixture-of-Depths: Dynamically allocating compute in transformer-based language models

    David Raposo, Sam Ritter, Blake Richards, Timothy Lillicrap, Peter Conway Humphreys, and Adam Santoro. Mixture-of-depths: Dynamically allocating compute in transformer-based language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02258

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Draft& verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding

    Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. Draft& verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar, editors,Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), ACL 2024, Bang...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.607 2024

  25. [25]

    Swift: On-the-fly self- speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration, 2025

    Heming Xia, Yongqi Li, Jun Zhang, Cunxiao Du, and Wenjie Li. Swift: On-the-fly self- speculative decoding for llm inference acceleration, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.06916

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Opti- mized early-exit based speculative decoding via pipeline parallelism, 2026

    Ruanjun Li, Ziheng Liu, Yuanming Shi, Jiawei Shao, Chi Zhang, and Xuelong Li. Opti- mized early-exit based speculative decoding via pipeline parallelism, 2026. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=6ezbdRe90k

    2026

  27. [27]

    Accelerating Large Language Model Decoding with Speculative Sampling

    Charlie Chen, Sebastian Borgeaud, Geoffrey Irving, Jean-Baptiste Lespiau, Laurent Sifre, and John Jumper. Accelerating large language model decoding with speculative sampling, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2302.01318

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Easyspec: Layer-parallel speculative decoding for efficient multi-gpu utilization, 2025

    Yize Wu, Ke Gao, Ling Li, and Yanjun Wu. Easyspec: Layer-parallel speculative decoding for efficient multi-gpu utilization, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02493

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, Jason D. Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao. Medusa: Simple llm inference acceleration framework with multiple decoding heads,

  30. [30]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10774

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  31. [31]

    EAGLE: Speculative Sampling Requires Rethinking Feature Uncertainty

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. Eagle: Speculative sampling requires rethinking feature uncertainty, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15077

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Speculative Speculative Decoding

    Tanishq Kumar, Tri Dao, and Avner May. Speculative speculative decoding, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03251

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Megatron-LM: Training Multi-Billion Parameter Language Models Using Model Parallelism

    Mohammad Shoeybi, Mostofa Patwary, Raul Puri, Patrick LeGresley, Jared Casper, and Bryan Catanzaro. Megatron-lm: Training multi-billion parameter language models using model parallelism, 2020. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1909.08053

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    GPipe: Efficient Training of Giant Neural Networks using Pipeline Parallelism

    Yanping Huang, Youlong Cheng, Ankur Bapna, Orhan Firat, Mia Xu Chen, Dehao Chen, HyoukJoong Lee, Jiquan Ngiam, Quoc V . Le, Yonghui Wu, and Zhifeng Chen. Gpipe: Efficient training of giant neural networks using pipeline parallelism, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/1811.06965

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Sharegpt_vicuna_unfiltered, 2023

    Aeala. Sharegpt_vicuna_unfiltered, 2023. URL https://huggingface.co/datasets/ Aeala/ShareGPT_Vicuna_unfiltered. A Additional formulation details and proofs Section 2 presents the compact formulation used in the main paper. This appendix provides additional empirical measurements, illustrative examples, and full derivations for the selection and exploratio...

    2023