SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2510.22876

Correctness Forensics for Batch Speculative Decoding: Diagnosing the Ragged Tensor Problem

Abstract

Inference optimizations are routinely evaluated by throughput alone, without verifying output correctness. We conduct a forensic analysis of batch speculative decoding and find that several widely-used implementations silently produce corrupted outputs (repetitive tokens, symbols) while reporting competitive speed; failures invisible to metrics like ROUGE. We trace the root cause to the ragged tensor problem: variable token acceptance desynchronizes position IDs, attention masks, and KV-cache across a batch. We formalize the synchronization invariants (rectangular alignment and position-ID contiguity) that valid batched inference must preserve and show that maintaining them incurs superlinear alignment overhead under contiguous layouts. EQSPEC enforces the invariants without custom kernels; EXSPEC schedules same-length sequences to bypass realignment. On SpecBench across three model families, EXSPEC reaches 3 x throughput at batch size 8 with 95% exact match to standard decoding; residual divergence traces to floating-point non-determinism, not synchronization error. Code:https://github.com/eBay/spec_dec

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Ranran Haoran Zhang, Soumik Dey, Ashirbad Mishra, Hansi Wu, Binbin Li, Rui Zhang. 2026-08-31. Correctness Forensics for Batch Speculative Decoding: Diagnosing the Ragged Tensor Problem. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.22876

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI

Sleight of Word Benchmark: Can Language Models Notice If Their Own Output Was Tampered With?

The output of a Language Model can be tampered with \emph{while} the model is writing it. A simple test can thus be constructed by evaluating the model's perception of this external perturbation. In this spirit, a simple benchmark is built in which a single word is consistently substituted with another in the generation process. We call this method \emph{Sleight of Word}. Two distinct axes are measured: metrics that relate to the model's surprise, as well as an evaluation of the textual reaction for 19 different open-weight language models.

cs.CL

TCS-BENCH: Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Generative AI Theoretical Computer Science Research Ability

We introduce TCS-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on research-level Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) proof generation. TCS-Bench consists of theorem-proving tasks from papers published at top theoretical computer science venues (STOC, FOCS, and SODA). Each task provides the necessary context to derive a self-contained proof for a target result. We evaluate state-of-the-art models on this benchmark. We verify the correctness of generated proofs via a verification agent, and further benchmark the verifier against human-expert proof judgements on a set of target statements and generated proofs pairs. Our reference verifier achieves over 90% accuracy on the expert labeled set.

cs.CL