Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2611.04042

Testing Processor Contracts in Speculative Decoding Engines

Abstract

Speculative sampling can accelerate decoding without changing the target distribution. Its standard guarantee assumes that logits processors, which enforce constraints or modify token scores, receive the appropriate token prefix and state at each verification position. We formalize this processor-prefix contract and present BADC (branch-aware differential conformance testing). BADC combines enumerated references on tiny random models, checks of processor inputs and state, and simultaneous confidence bounds on output-event probabilities. Preregistered, source-informed experiments on selected Transformers and llama-cpp-python releases confirm two causes: processors read unverified drafts or advance state without rollback. For one pilot-selected prompt on a trained checkpoint, fresh samples give a 60.26-percentage-point lower bound on the difference in the probability of a predefined first-token event between ordinary and prompt-lookup decoding, with nominal simultaneous 95% coverage under within-arm i.i.d. sampling. Controlled comparisons establish no cause-recovery advantage of directed selection over random selection, while permutation testing detects each tested family at least as often as BADC. These findings connect processor-interface failures to observable decoding differences without establishing diagnostic superiority or workload prevalence.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Tianyu Ding, Yaocheng Tong, Muzhi Yang, Lei Yang, Fei Jiang. 2026-11-02. Testing Processor Contracts in Speculative Decoding Engines. https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.04042

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Psychological Safety Framework in Pull-based Open Source Projects

Psychological safety (PS) refers to the belief that team members can speak up, ask questions, and make mistakes without fear of negative consequences. Although PS has been studied in traditional software teams, less is known about how it may appear in pull-based open-source software development, where contributors are self-directed and often collaborate voluntarily. This paper introduces a theory-informed framework for understanding how PS may be reflected in pull request (PR) interactions. We investigate the framework through a mixed-methods approach combining repository-based analysis and a survey of OSS contributors. First, we constructed a PS index using nine observable PR interaction indicators extracted from 60,685 PRs across 26 GitHub repositories. Second, we surveyed 57 OSS contributors about their perceived PS and experiences of corresponding PR interactions. All nine surveyed interaction indicators were significantly and positively associated with perceived PS. However, the repository-based index was not significantly associated with survey-reported PS. Contributors' open-ended responses further highlighted the importance of feedback quality, opportunities to participate, and how PR outcomes are interpreted. Together, our framework and mixed-methods findings provide initial insights into how PS may be reflected in PR interactions, highlighting the importance of both PR interaction patterns and contributors' experiences.

cs.SE↗

Structuring license permissiveness from pairwise comparisons

Licenses are legal instruments that inventors rely upon to protect the technologies they build and regulate how they are used---however, the nature of their authorship and selection implies that how they are interpreted, chosen, and enforced is largely unstructured. In practice, this makes it difficult to compare licenses at scale---when is one license considered more permissive than the other, and when are their terms incomparable to each other? Currently, there is a growing list of licenses that are introduced and used, yet no systematic way to study their relationships. This matters for platforms such as Hugging Face, GitHub, and the Python Package Index, where developers publish or build upon technologies that each have their own licenses. Using large language models (LLMs), we introduce methods for comparing licenses at scale: first, in a pairwise fashion to construct and validate a partial ordering based on permissiveness; and by drawing on existing taxonomies of software licenses. Then, we try to recover the structure with the Bradley-Terry model to see if permissiveness can be judged more cheaply and observe a loss of $\sim$20\%---and classify this loss to feature coverage. The former coupled with model rationale allows us to trace restrictiveness, and the latter allows us to understand license selection as a combination of shared provisions.

cs.SE↗

Repository and Issue Characteristics of Early GenAI Adopters on GitHub

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has introduced new forms of AI assistance into software development, but less is known about the repositories and issues of early adopters of GenAI tools. We study the repository and issue characteristics of early adopters who state interest in GenAI on their public profiles on GitHub by analyzing 531 early adopters, 100 of their repositories with AI-tool configuration files (ACFs), 100 matched control repositories without ACFs, and 370 issues from the two repository groups. Repositories with ACFs show modest distributional differences in selected README structural characteristics. They contain longer README files with more code blocks and include a license more often, while repositories without ACFs contain more external URLs. The category distributions of the two repository groups show weak evidence of a difference. Once GenAI relatedness is held fixed, we detect no difference in issue Type or Outcome between the two repository groups. Our data, collected from May to August 2025, record how early adopters developed software in Software Engineering 2.0, the stage in which developers use both AI assistants and autonomous AI agents. When these agents become the norm, later studies can compare their data with ours.

cs.SE↗