ilc
6 hours ago
Watch the video carefully. DFlash2's tool call fails on python syntax.
Usually models in this class nail things like that 1 shot, which the other side did.
I don't know the cause. It may be nothing. But I'd like to see the model doing something where its path is a bit more constrained, to help out rule out such oddities.
zackangelo
5 hours ago
DFlash is lossless so this would be a bug in the implementation if it is indeed a regression against the target model.
liuliu
5 hours ago
Only if you do greedy sampling. With probabilisitic sampling (categorical sampling), you will end up with different trajectory just “mathematically equivalent”.
stymaar
4 hours ago
Can you explain a little bit more please?
stkdump
an hour ago
Not OP, but you can influence how deterministic your LLM behaves using the temperature setting. The neural network doesn't directly output tokens, but logits which are then converted to probabilities and then a token is chosen at random, unless the temperature is 0 (i.e. greedy, we just always pick the most probable token without any randomness). All speculative decoding methods have to "commit" to a token though even when they don't know the actual logits of the full size NN yet. The question then is (and I don't know the answer): how do the common inference engines behave when the speculation landed on the most probable token, but the random choice still doesn't land on it? You can imagine that in the interest of performance as long as we stay reasonably inside the probability we just go ahead with the speculation. Not sure if thats implemented like that though.
Edit: I just looked up the math, and actually the idea of speculative decoding is done in a clever way that fully preserves the probability distribution while still maximizing the acceptance rate of draft tokens. So I would have to disagree with OP and say that no, non-greedy sampling doesn't influence the trajectories.