0

GRAFT: Adaptive DLM-Based Draft Tree Construction with Target-Distilled Edge Scoring

Tree-based speculative decoding raises the mean accepted tokens of standard speculative decoding by verifying multiple draft paths, and existing tree builders typically construct these paths through parent-conditioned expansion, where each child token is generated conditioned on…

Preview
Year
2026
Hosting
Abstract onlyARXIV-DEFAULT

Cite

Notes

Only stored in your browser.

Attribution

Abstract & full text
arxiv.org/abs/2608.20375ARXIV-DEFAULT
TL;DR
Semantic Scholar
Attribution policy →

Abstract

Tree-based speculative decoding raises the mean accepted tokens of standard speculative decoding by verifying multiple draft paths, and existing tree builders typically construct these paths through parent-conditioned expansion, where each child token is generated conditioned on its parent path. This construction is incompatible with diffusion language model (DLM) drafters such as DFlash, which produces all future-position distributions in a single forward pass. DDTree bridges this gap by treating high-probability tokens from each future-position distribution as candidate nodes and selecting edges between consecutive positions under a fixed node budget. However, its edge selection relies on token probability alone without modeling parent--child compatibility, so target-compatible tokens can be attached to wrong parents; moreover, its fixed budget ignores that the throughput-optimal tree size varies with the decoding state. We propose GRAFT, a draft-tree construction framework for DLM-based speculative decoding. GRAFT introduces Target-Distilled Edge Scoring (TDES), which distills parent--child preferences from target-model traces to select target-compatible edges, and State-Aware Budget Allocation (SABA), which sets the per-round tree budget by balancing expected draft gain against verification cost. Across multiple models and tasks, GRAFT achieves 2.13\times--6.36\times end-to-end speedup over autoregressive decoding while adding less than 0.5,ms of overhead per round, approximately 1.4% of the target-model verification latency.