Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

S$^4$C: Speculative Sampling with Syntactic and Semantic Coherence for Efficient Inference of Large Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A multi-head draft model plus a continuous verification tree is claimed to lift speculative decoding speedups to 2.26x–2.60x on Spec-bench while preserving the target LLM's output distribution.

desk verdict S4C is a plausible incremental speedup for speculative decoding, but the printed verification equation is wrong and no code is released, so the central claim is not yet checkable. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14158 v1 pith:AX3F35SM submitted 2025-06-17 cs.CL cs.AI

Tao He , Guang Huang , Yu Yang , Tianshi Xu , Sicheng Zhao , Guiguang Ding , Pengyang Wang , Feng Tian This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords speculativedecodingsamplingLLMinferenceaccelerationmulti-headdraftingverificationtreesyntacticcoherencesemanticVicuna
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper claims that speculative decoding can go faster by designing the draft model to exploit both syntactic and semantic coherence in text, and it introduces S4C to do this. S4C uses a multi-head autoregressive draft model that reuses the target LLM's internal features to propose several tokens at once, then validates them with a continuous verification tree. On the Spec-bench suite, S4C reports the highest speedups among the compared methods: 2.26x for 7B, 2.41x for 13B, and 2.60x for 33B Vicuna models over autoregressive decoding, with mean accepted token lengths of 3.86, 3.98, and 3.67. A sympathetic reader would care because these numbers promise faster LLM responses without a separate draft model, at a memory cost lower than the strongest dynamic-tree baseline.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the multi-head continuous draft model paired with a continuous verification tree. Each draft head computes $h_{i+1} = \mathrm{Linear}(\mathrm{concat}(e_i, f_i))$ and passes it through decoder layers to produce features, and the target model's LM head and embedding layer turn those features into draft tokens; the first head reuses the target feature and takes the top-2 candidates, while later heads use the most probable token, creating a hybrid of parallel and autoregressive drafting. The verification tree lays these drafts out as a tree with vertical top-1 tokens and horizontal top-k alternatives, applies a mask to find the longest accepted path, and uses the acceptance and resampling rules of equations (11) and (12) to keep the output distribution aligned with the target LLM. This machinery is what lets the method propose and validate multiple coherent tokens in a single target-model forward pass.

What would settle it

Run S4C with temperature sampling on Spec-bench and compare the distribution of generated tokens with the target Vicuna model under the same prompts and random seeds; if S4C preserves the target distribution, a statistical comparison of many sampled continuations should show no significant divergence, and any large divergence would falsify the correctness claim in Section 3.2. A second check is to inspect how the acceptance and resampling equations (11) and (12) are applied to argmax drafts, since greedy decoding never exercises the resampling branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

S4C is a draft-then-verify framework in which a small multi-head network, trained on the target model's own features, generates candidate tokens in rounds: within a round the heads propose tokens in parallel, modeling syntactic coherence, and between rounds the input to each head depends on the previous head's output, modeling semantic coherence. The candidates are arranged in a continuous verification tree, with vertically generated top-1 tokens and horizontally expanded top-k alternatives, and a tree mask selects the longest accepted path. Acceptance follows the speculative-sampling rule $r < \min(1, q(x)/p(x))$, and rejected positions are resampled from $\mathrm{norm}(\max(q, p))$ so that the output remains aligned with the target LLM. The paper reports that this combination achieves acceleration ratios of 2.26x, 2.41x, and 2.60x for 7B, 13B, and 33B models on Spec-bench, with average acceptance lengths around 3.7 to 4.0 tokens.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the tree-based verification step described in Section 3.2 produces output that matches the target LLM's distribution, a property the paper asserts but never directly tests because all experiments use greedy decoding; if the described and implemented verification differ, the measured speedups would not represent a valid speculative sampling method.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, S4C would be the fastest method on the Spec-bench leaderboard for Vicuna 7B, 13B, and 33B, with 2.26x, 2.41x, and 2.60x speedups over autoregressive decoding.
  • S4C's mean accepted lengths of 3.86, 3.98, and 3.67 imply that roughly four tokens are verified per forward pass, which is what produces the speedup.
  • The efficiency metric $r = \text{acceleration ratio} / \text{extra memory}$ places S4C at 0.2440, above EAGLE2's 0.2258 and EAGLE's 0.2279, so when memory matters S4C offers a better speedup-per-gigabyte trade-off.
  • The ablations in Sections 4.4 and 4.5 indicate that both the S4C draft model and the S4C verification tree contribute to the gain, so the two components can in principle be swapped with other draft models or trees.
  • Because the described verification preserves the target distribution, S4C could be used as a drop-in replacement for autoregressive decoding on tasks where output quality must be maintained, not just for greedy decoding.
  • If the S4C framework is correct, it suggests that further speedups may come from better coherence modeling rather than from larger draft models, a direction the paper motivates explicitly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper only measures greedy decoding; if the acceptance and resampling protocol truly preserves the target distribution, the same framework should extend to temperature sampling, but the paper's own temperature experiments show speedup degrading as randomness increases, so stochastic settings are likely to see smaller gains.
  • Because S4C's gains hinge on natural-language coherence, tasks with high-entropy or less predictable text, such as raw code, random identifiers, or adversarial inputs, may yield shorter accepted runs than Spec-bench's six tasks; measuring acceptance length on such inputs would be a direct stress test.
  • Feature reuse from the frozen target model suggests the draft heads could be adapted to other transformer architectures or even multimodal decoders, though the paper only trains and reports on Vicuna models.
  • The comparison to EAGLE2 is limited to one memory-efficiency table; a full head-to-head latency comparison on identical hardware would clarify whether the 2.26x versus 2.38x gap is within run-to-run noise.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes S4C, a speculative decoding framework for LLM inference acceleration. S4C combines a multi-head autoregressive draft model with a continuous verification tree, aiming to capture both syntactic and semantic coherence. The authors report speedups of 2.26x, 2.41x, and 2.60x over autoregressive decoding on Spec-bench for Vicuna-v1.3 7B, 13B, and 33B, respectively, and claim this outperforms state-of-the-art methods. The paper also introduces an efficiency metric r = acceleration / extra memory to argue that S4C balances speed and resource usage better than methods like EAGLE-2. The central contribution is the architectural combination and the claim of lossless distribution preservation via a tree-based rejection sampling scheme.

Significance. If the reported speedups and the losslessness guarantee hold, S4C would be a practically useful contribution to efficient LLM inference. The idea of separating syntactic coherence (parallel multi-head drafting) and semantic coherence (autoregressive dependencies between heads) is interesting and aligns with known trade-offs in Medusa versus EAGLE-style drafting. The paper also provides a direct comparison on Spec-bench, a widely used benchmark. However, the current validation is undermined by a mathematically incorrect resampling formula, an unresolved inconsistency between the described sampling-based verification and the declared greedy decoding experiments, and the omission from the main comparison of EAGLE-2, which the paper's own Table 2 shows achieves a higher acceleration on the 7B model. These issues are load-bearing for the central claims, so the significance assessment is conditional on their resolution.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (12)] The correction distribution in Eq. (12) is written as x_{t+c} ~ norm(max(q_c, p_c)), with no subtraction and no zero floor. The standard lossless residual distribution after rejection in speculative sampling is norm(max(0, q_c - p_c)) (Leviathan et al., 2023). The displayed formula does not preserve the target LLM's distribution, and the surrounding text's claim that 'This process guarantees alignment' is contradicted by the displayed math. This is not a cosmetic issue: every reported speedup depends on the verification procedure being a valid lossless algorithm. Please correct the formula or clarify what the implemented procedure actually was.
  2. [Sections 4.1.2 and 4.6] Section 4.1.2 states that 'all experiments employed greedy decoding,' but Section 4.6 reports a temperature dependence of S4C's speedup and acceptance length, which is only meaningful under sampling. Moreover, the verification rule in Eq. (11) uses a uniform random variable r, which is the rejection-sampling rule for stochastic target distributions; under greedy decoding, acceptance should be deterministic (the draft token matches the target's argmax). The paper does not describe the greedy verification rule or how the tree mask implements it. This is a fundamental inconsistency between the described algorithm and the reported experiments, making the measured speedups unverifiable without access to the (unreleased) code.
  3. [Tables 1 and 2] EAGLE-2 is absent from the main speedup comparison in Table 1, yet Table 2 reports EAGLE-2's acceleration ratio as 2.38x and S4C's as 2.26x on (presumably) the 7B model. Thus the abstract's claim that S4C 'outperforms state-of-the-art methods' is not supported by the paper's own data. EAGLE-2 must be included in the main comparison, and the claims must be revised accordingly. If EAGLE-2 is faster, the central claim of the paper is not 'the fastest method' but a different, weaker claim.
  4. [Section 4.3, Eq. (13)] The efficiency metric r = acceleration_ratio / extra_memory is ad hoc and favors methods with low memory overhead by construction. It does not account for latency, throughput, or the fact that extra memory is often allocated once and reused. The paper uses this metric to argue that S4C achieves a 'superior balance,' but the metric is not justified or compared with any standard efficiency measure from the speculative decoding literature. Please provide a principled basis for this metric or frame the resource comparison as a simple memory-accuracy trade-off without implying it is a universal efficiency measure.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Notation, Sections 2 and 3.2, Eq. (11)] The notation for target and draft probabilities is reversed between Section 2 (draft q, target p) and Eq. (11) (where the text says q(x) is the target probability and p(x) is the draft probability). This is confusing and should be unified throughout the paper.
  2. [Sections 4.4-4.5] The RQ labels are mismatched: Section 4.4 (Different Validation Trees) is labeled RQ3, but RQ3 concerns multi-head structure, while Section 4.5 (Different Draft Models) is labeled RQ4, which concerns the validation tree. Please renumber the research questions and sections consistently.
  3. [Section 4.1.1 and Table 2] Table 2 does not specify the model size or the experimental conditions for the reported extra memory and acceleration values. Please state explicitly that these are for the 7B model (or for whichever configuration is used) so that the comparison with Table 1 is transparent.
  4. [Section 3.1.2] The training details are under-specified: the paper reports the loss function but not the training dataset, number of epochs, learning rate, optimizer, or the number of draft heads used in the final configuration (the text says 'three identical heads' but Figure 2 and the loss weights suggest more design choices). Please provide these details for reproducibility.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typographical and formatting issues, including the title spacing ('S 4C' vs 'S4C'), the 'Argmax' notation in Eq. (5) without a definition, and the missing caption text in Table 1 (the caption is incomplete). A careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found; speedups are empirically measured, though the verification equations contain apparent non-circular correctness errors.

full rationale

The paper's central claims (2.26x, 2.41x, and 2.60x speedups) are empirical wall-clock acceleration ratios reported in Table 1, not quantities derived from the framework's equations. The draft model is trained with standard next-token and teacher-forcing losses (Eqs. 7-10) to mimic the target model, which is normal speculative-decoding practice and does not make the later speedup a tautology. The efficiency metric r in Eq. 13 is an author-defined combination of measured acceleration and memory usage; it is self-serving in that it favors S4C's memory profile, but it is not circular because the ranking follows from independent measurements, not from the metric's definition. The paper also does not rely on load-bearing self-citations or an imported uniqueness theorem. The most notable issue is in Section 3.2: Eq. 12 writes the resampling distribution as norm(max(q_c, p_c)) rather than the standard lossless residual norm(max(0, q_c - p_c)), and Eq. 11's prose appears to reverse the definitions of q and p relative to Section 2. These are potential correctness gaps that could invalidate the claim that the output distribution is preserved, and they are compounded by the statement in Section 4.1.2 that all experiments use greedy decoding, where the sampling-style acceptance rule is not the usual greedy verification rule. However, an incorrect or unspecified verification rule is not circular reasoning: it does not reduce the claimed result to an input or a self-citation. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claims are empirical measurements, so the axiomatic burden is mostly in the unstated assumptions about the verification protocol (greedy vs sampling), the sufficiency of target features, and the representativeness of the benchmark. The free parameters are architectural choices that are not systematically justified.

free parameters (4)
  • loss weights w1, w2, w3 = 0.1, 1.0, 0.1
    Chosen without ablation; no sensitivity analysis is provided, and the values affect draft head training quality.
  • number of draft heads = 3
    Architectural choice; no ablation or comparison with different head counts is given.
  • tree horizontal expansion top-k = 3 (example in Figure 3)
    The tree width is shown in a figure but not formally defined or varied.
  • tree depth / vertical expansion length = not specified
    The maximum number of vertical tokens and the number of candidate paths are never stated.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Rejection sampling scheme from Leviathan et al. preserves the target distribution.
    Assumed without proof, and applied to greedy decoding where the standard acceptance rule differs. Section 3.2 relies on this for correctness.
  • domain assumption Features from the target model's penultimate layer are sufficient to predict future tokens through the draft heads.
    Core to the drafting architecture, inherited from EAGLE; the paper does not validate this assumption for its specific multi-head setup.
  • domain assumption Spec-Bench is a valid proxy for real-world inference speedup.
    The paper adopts the Spec-Bench protocol without discussing its limitations, such as fixed prompt lengths and model families.
invented entities (1)
  • Continuous verification tree
    purpose: Expands the candidate set so that if the top-1 token is rejected, alternative branches can be accepted.
    This tree structure resembles EAGLE-2's dynamic draft trees and SpecInfer's verification trees, but the paper provides no formal definition or external validation of the tree construction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of S$^4$C: Speculative Sampling with Syntactic and Semantic Coherence for Efficient Inference of Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AX3F35SM

@misc{pith2026250614158,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: S$^4$C: Speculative Sampling with Syntactic and Semantic Coherence for Efficient Inference of Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AX3F35SM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14158}
}
abstract

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit remarkable reasoning capabilities across diverse downstream tasks. However, their autoregressive nature leads to substantial inference latency, posing challenges for real-time applications. Speculative sampling mitigates this issue by introducing a drafting phase followed by a parallel validation phase, enabling faster token generation and verification. Existing approaches, however, overlook the inherent coherence in text generation, limiting their efficiency. To address this gap, we propose a Speculative Sampling with Syntactic and Semantic Coherence (S$^4$C) framework, which extends speculative sampling by leveraging multi-head drafting for rapid token generation and a continuous verification tree for efficient candidate validation and feature reuse. Experimental results demonstrate that S$^4$C surpasses baseline methods across mainstream tasks, offering enhanced efficiency, parallelism, and the ability to generate more valid tokens with fewer computational resources. On Spec-bench benchmarks, S$^4$C achieves an acceleration ratio of 2.26x-2.60x, outperforming state-of-the-art methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14158 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of different drafting processes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Multi-head auto-regressive drafting architecture. The left side represents the target model with frozen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Continuous verification tree architecture (left) and tree mask matrix (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance comparison of different valida [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) presents the acceleration ratios across multiple tasks, including MT, Trans, Sum, QA, MR, and RAG, as well as an overall compar￾ison. Our proposed model consistently achieves the highest acceleration ratio across all tasks, with the most significant improvements ob…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Case study illustration. Highlighted words [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: S4C performance under different temperature settings. Our analysis reveals a clear trend: as the tem￾perature increases, the performance of S4C grad￾ually declines ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, and 1 others. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Zachary Ankner, Rishab Parthasarathy, Aniruddha Nrusimha, Christopher Rinard, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley, and William Brandon. 2024. Hydra: Sequentially-dependent draft heads for medusa decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05109

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Tianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng, Jason D Lee, Deming Chen, and Tri Dao. 2024. Medusa: Simple llm inference acceleration framework with multiple decoding heads. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10774

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

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

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Ying Sheng, Zhanghao Wu, Hao Zhang, Lianmin Zheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Yonghao Zhuang, Joseph E Gonzalez, and 1 others. 2023. Vicuna: An open-source chatbot impressing gpt-4 with 90\ See https://vicuna. lmsys. org (accessed 14 April 2023), 2(3):6

    2023

  6. [6]

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, and 1 others. 2021. Training verifiers to solve math word problems, 2021. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2110.14168

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Yichao Fu, Peter Bailis, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2024. Break the sequential dependency of llm inference using lookahead decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02057

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Zhenyu He, Zexuan Zhong, Tianle Cai, Jason D Lee, and Di He. 2023. Rest: Retrieval-based speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08252

    arXiv 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Coleman Hooper, Sehoon Kim, Hiva Mohammadzadeh, Hasan Genc, Kurt Keutzer, Amir Gholami, and Yakun Sophia Shao. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2310.12072 SPEED: speculative pipelined execution for efficient decoding . CoRR, abs/2310.12072

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, and 1 others. 2023. Mistral 7b. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06825

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas O g uz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. 2020. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.04906

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, and 1 others. 2019. Natural questions: a benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Associatio...

    2019

  5. [13]

    Yaniv Leviathan, Matan Kalman, and Yossi Matias. 2023. Fast inference from transformers via speculative decoding. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 19274--19286. PMLR

    2023

  6. [14]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024 a . Eagle-2: Faster inference of language models with dynamic draft trees. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16858

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yuhui Li, Fangyun Wei, Chao Zhang, and Hongyang Zhang. 2024 b . Eagle: Speculative sampling requires rethinking feature uncertainty. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15077

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Xupeng Miao, Gabriele Oliaro, Zhihao Zhang, Xinhao Cheng, Zeyu Wang, Zhengxin Zhang, Rae Ying Yee Wong, Alan Zhu, Lijie Yang, Xiaoxiang Shi, and 1 others. 2024. Specinfer: Accelerating large language model serving with tree-based speculative inference and verification. In Proc...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Giovanni Monea, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.13581 Pass: Parallel speculative sampling . CoRR, abs/2311.13581

    2023 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Caglar Gulcehre, Bing Xiang, and 1 others. 2016. Abstractive text summarization using sequence-to-sequence rnns and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.06023

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Andrea Santilli, Silvio Severino, Emilian Postolache, Valentino Maiorca, Michele Mancusi, Riccardo Marin, and Emanuele Rodol \` a . 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2023.ACL-LONG.689 Accelerating transformer inference for translation via parallel decoding . In Proceedings of ...

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    Apoorv Saxena. 2023. https://github.com/apoorvumang/prompt-lookup-decoding/ Prompt lookup decoding

    2023

  13. [21]

    Benjamin Spector and Christopher R \' e . 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2308.04623 Accelerating LLM inference with staged speculative decoding . CoRR, abs/2308.04623

    2023 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mitchell Stern, Noam Shazeer, and Jakob Uszkoreit. 2018. Blockwise parallel decoding for deep autoregressive models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31

    2018

  15. [23]

    Ziteng Sun, Ananda Theertha Suresh, Jae Hun Ro, Ahmad Beirami, Himanshu Jain, and Felix X. Yu. 2023. http://papers.nips.cc/paper\_files/paper/2023/hash/6034a661584af6c28fd97a6f23e56c0a-Abstract-Conference.html Spectr: Fast speculative decoding via optimal transport . In Advanc...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth \'e e Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi \`e re, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, and 1 others. 2023 a . Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, and 1 others. 2023 b . Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Heming Xia, Tao Ge, Peiyi Wang, Si-Qing Chen, Furu Wei, and Zhifang Sui. 2023. Speculative decoding: Exploiting speculative execution for accelerating seq2seq generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 3909--3925

    2023

  19. [27]

    Heming Xia, Zhe Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Peiyi Wang, Yongqi Li, Tao Ge, Tianyu Liu, Wenjie Li, and Zhifang Sui. 2024. Unlocking efficiency in large language model inference: A comprehensive survey of speculative decoding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07851

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Seongjun Yang, Gibbeum Lee, Jaewoong Cho, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, and Kangwook Lee. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=yUmJ483OB0 Predictive pipelined decoding: A compute-latency trade-off for exact LLM decoding . Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Jun Zhang, Jue Wang, Huan Li, Lidan Shou, Ke Chen, Gang Chen, and Sharad Mehrotra. 2024 a . https://doi.org/10.18653/V1/2024.ACL-LONG.607 Draft & verify: Lossless large language model acceleration via self-speculative decoding . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the...

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    Peiyuan Zhang, Guangtao Zeng, Tianduo Wang, and Wei Lu. 2024 b . Tinyllama: An open-source small language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02385

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, and 1 others. 2023. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:46595--46623

    2023

  24. [32]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  25. [33]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.