SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2512.23765

Entropy-Aware Token Rejection for Improving Speculative Decoding

Abstract

Speculative decoding (SD) accelerates large language model (LLM) inference by using a lightweight draft model to propose tokens and a stronger target model to verify them. However, standard SD is mainly designed for acceleration, and its output quality is typically constrained by the target model. In this work, we propose Entropy-Aware Speculative Decoding (EASD), a lightweight and training-free extension of SD that improves reasoning quality through token-level entropy-guided rejection. EASD detects cases where both draft and target models exhibit high uncertainty while strongly overlapping in their top predictions. In such uncertain-agreement cases, EASD rejects the aligned token and resamples from the target distribution, preventing low-confidence errors from propagating. Experiments on challenging reasoning benchmarks show that EASD consistently improves accuracy over standard SD and reward-guided variants while maintaining comparable inference efficiency. Notably, EASD can surpass the standalone performance of the target model, suggesting that speculative decoding can serve not only as an acceleration method but also as an effective mechanism for improving reasoning quality. The code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/EASD.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Tiancheng Su, Meicong Zhang, Guoxiu He. 2026-08-30. Entropy-Aware Token Rejection for Improving Speculative Decoding. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23765

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