Autoregressive language models are usually trained with next-token prediction under a fixed left-to-right target order. This paper studies target-token organization as a training-time design choice across arithmetic reasoning, multi-label text classification, and text generation. Controlled order studies show that the default NTP order can be far from the best-performing tested organization, while fixed hand-crafted orders such as reverse order do not generalize across tasks. To address this, Max(MI(S;t)) is introduced as a deterministic mutual-information-based heuristic that prioritizes information-rich target tokens. For fixed-length outputs, it constructs task-specific prediction orders; for open-vocabulary text generation, the same principle is applied through lightweight prefix augmentation. Experiments with GPT-style models and pretrained Llama/Qwen variants show that Max(MI(S;t)) often improves over standard NTP and simple baselines such as reverse order, TF-IDF, and conditional-probability selection, without changing model architecture or autoregressive decoding.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An example of learning information-rich tokens first in MLC task. Prioritizing information-rich tokens ( insult label) during training reduces prediction uncertainty and improves subsequent label prediction, whereas left-to-right NTP can be harder to learn due to a lack of emphasis on informative tokens and cumulative uncertainty.
Figure 2: Rank-based comparison of target-token organization strategies. For (a)–(c), we exhaustively evaluate all 4!=24 orders for four output digits or labels; NTP ranks poorly among these orders, while Max(MI( S;t )) consistently approaches or matches the optimum, and reverse order only works well for addition. For (d), where reverse ordering does not apply to natural language generation, we instead expose one selected word earlier by prefix duplication; Max(MI( S;t )) achieves the lowest perplexity, outperforming NTP, TF-IDF, and conditional-probability baselines. For experimental setup, see Appendix B. For separate illustrative training-curve experiments showing performance discrepancy across training orders, see Figure 9 .
Figure 3: Overview of Max(MI( S;t )) . We first compute MI scores between the current source and candidate targets. Fixed-length tasks use the selected targets to form a reordered output sequence, while open-vocabulary TG uses the selected word for per-sentence prefix augmentation.
Task
Best Order
Best Acc.
NTP
Reverse
Max(MI( S ; t ))
3-digit Addition
C4C3C2C1
99.99%
85.09%
99.99%
97.46%
2-digit Multiplication
C3C2C4C1
98.22%
70.15%
95.35%
97.38%
4-digit Logarithm
C1C4C3C2
98.21%
95.99%
96.63% †
96.63% †
3-digit Greatest Common Divisor
C1C3C2
95.80%
91.45%
92.59% †
92.59% †
3-digit Multiplication
C5C4C3C6C2C1
99.66%
71.43%
88.15%
96.23%
2-digit Chicken-Rabbit Problem
C4C2C3C1
92.12%
34.92%
45.04%
89.48%
Table 1: GPT-based model performance across different arithmetic tasks. Token prediction strategies: (1) NTP : standard left-to-right target order. (2) Reverse : reversed NTP. (3) Max(MI( S ; t )) : prioritizes output digits with the highest mutual information with the source. † : Identical predicted token sequences for both strategies.
Figure 4: Arithmetic data format with reordered digits. The source expression is fixed, while output digits are rearranged according to the selected prediction order.
Task
NTP
Reverse
Max(MI( S ; t ))
3-digit Addition
99.3%
99.8%
100.0%
2-digit Multiplication
94.1%
95.4%
96.7%
4-digit Logarithm
89.1%
89.0% †
89.6% †
3-digit Greatest Common Divisor
94.0%
93.7% †
94.3% †
2-digit Chicken-Rabbit Problem
84.7%
96.9%
99.4%
Average
92.2%
95.0%
96.0%
Table 2: Qwen-Math performance across arithmetic tasks. NTP : standard left-to-right order; Reverse : reversed NTP order; Max(MI( S ; t )) : prioritizes information-rich output digits. † : Identical predicted token sequences for Reverse and Max(MI( S ; t )).
Figure 5: Long-sequence multiplication with Qwen-Math. Each task multiplies two d -digit numbers. All strategies degrade as output length grows, but Max(MI( S ; t )) shows better robustness before the longest settings collapse.
Model
Dataset
Best Order
Best Acc.
NTP
Reverse
Max(MI( S ; t ))
Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct
ToxicComment
C3C1C2C4
85.81%
84.22%
82.59%
85.14%
Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct
ToxicComment
C1C4C3C2
77.20%
74.65%
74.48%
75.04%
Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct
ToxicComment
C1C3C4C2
78.85%
76.24%
70.98%
78.76%
Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct
ToxicComment
C2C1C3C4
74.26%
67.87%
68.90%
71.96%
GPT-2
ToxicComment
C3C1C2C4
88.63%
88.02%
88.17%
88.15%
GPT-2
PaperAbstract
C4C1C2C3
88.73%
88.52% †
88.23%
88.52% †
Table 3: Maximal accuracy in MLC across models and English datasets. NTP : standard left-to-right label order; Reverse : reversed NTP order; Max(MI( S ; t )) : prioritizes information-rich label tokens. † indicates identical predicted label sequences.
Figure 6: MLC data format with reordered labels. The input text is fixed, while output label decisions are rearranged according to the selected prediction order.
Model
NTP
Reverse
Max(MI( S ; t ))
Llama-3.1-8B †
81.52%
80.16%
82.82%
Llama-3.2-1B †
72.84%
72.39%
74.61%
Qwen2.5-3B †
72.73%
71.92%
74.39%
Qwen2.5-1.5B †
68.08%
70.39%
70.18%
GPT-2
75.65%
69.42%
79.70%
Average
74.16%
72.86%
76.34%
Table 4: Maximal accuracy in MLC on the Chinese ToxicComment dataset. NTP denotes the standard left-to-right label order; Reverse denotes the reversed NTP order; Max(MI( S ; t )) prioritizes information-rich label tokens. † indicates instruction-tuned models.
Figure 7: TG data format with per-sentence prefix augmentation. The selected word is inserted before each sentence between [START] and [END] .
Model
NTP
TF-IDF
P( t∣S )
Max(MI( S ; t ))
GPT-2
18.98
16.28
15.60
14.59
Llama-3.2-1B
8.19
7.51
7.27
6.95
Average
13.58
11.90
11.44
10.77
Table 5: Perplexity on WikiText-2. Lower is better. NTP denotes the standard unaugmented baseline; TF-IDF, P( t∣S ), and Max(MI( S ; t )) use the same prefix-augmentation format with different word-selection criteria.
Metric
NTP
TF-IDF
P( t∣S )
Max(MI( S ; t ))
ROUGE-1
0.2838
0.3298
0.3301
0.3313
ROUGE-2
0.0862
0.1093
0.1091
0.1102
ROUGE-L
0.2127
0.2547
0.2534
0.2554
Average
0.1942
0.2313
0.2309
0.2323
Table 6: ROUGE scores on XSUM using Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct. Higher is better.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Task Name
Data Format
3-digit Addition
A1A2A3+B1B2B3
=C1C2C3C4
2-digit Multiplication
A1A2×B1B2
=C1C2C3C4
4-digit Logarithm
log10(A1A2A3A4)
=C1.C2C3C4
Appendix
Table 7: Data format across arithmetic tasks for fine-tuning Qwen-Math model. Mathematical signs are removed for training minGPT. The meaning of the numbers in 2-digit CR: the number of heads is A1A2 , the number of legs is B1B2 , the number of chickens is C1C2 , and the number of rabbits is C3C4 . Abbreviations: GCD — greatest common divisor, CR — chicken-rabbit problem.
Figure 8: Running time of the preprocessing pipeline on WikiText-2 and XSUM datasets across data sampling rates.
Task
Metric(s)
NTP
TF-IDF
P( t∣S )
Max(MI( S ; t ))
CoLA
Matthew’s Corr
0.4039
0.4411
0.4325
0.4803
SST-2
Accuracy
0.9266
0.9197
0.9243
0.9266
MRPC
F1 / Accuracy
0.8711 /0.8064
0.8703/ 0.8137
0.8707/ 0.8137
0.8527/0.7892
STS-B
Pearson-Spearman Corr
0.8518 / 0.8498
0.8444/0.8438
0.8465/0.8465
0.8391/0.8398
QQP
F1 / Accuracy
0.8679/0.8994
0.8687/ 0.9010
0.8663/0.8996
0.8688 /0.9008
MNLI
Accuracy
0.8262
0.8222
0.8235
0.8288
Appendix
Table 8: Comparison of preprocessing strategies on the GLUE benchmark using GPT-2. NTP denotes the standard unaugmented baseline; TF-IDF, P( t∣S ), and Max(MI( S ; t )) use the prefix-augmentation format with different word-selection criteria.
Figure 9: Training curves of different target token orders with significant differences (not displaying all permutations of target token orders due to complexity). (a) 3-digit Addition A1A2A3+B1B2B3=C1C2C3C4 on NanoGPT (0.09M parameters). (b) 2-digit Multiplication A1A2×B1B2=C1C2C3C4 on GPT-2-mini (2.67M parameters). (c) Multi-label classification on Qwen-2.5-1.5B-Instruct using ToxicComment dataset, whose labels [ toxic,obscene,insult,identity_hate ] are retained and marked as [ C1,C2,C3,C4 ]. Each curve represents a distinct token order. (d) Text generation on GPT-2-small (137M parameters) using WikiText-2 dataset. Abbreviations: Acc – Maximal accuracy at fixed iteration, Rank – the rank of Acc among all permutations of target token orders.
Generative modeling of discrete data has two popular paradigms: autoregressive models such as GPT, which factorize a sequence in a left-to-right (L2R) order, and masked diffusion models, which are essentially any-order autoregressive modeling. Rather than competing methods, these are the two extreme points of a single axis -- the generation order. For structured discrete domains without a natural traversal, both extremes may be suboptimal, yet the intermediate choice -- a single well-adapted order -- remains largely unexplored. We introduce OrderGPT, which builds on Any-Order GPT to learn a task-level generation order without canonical-order supervision. Our key observation is that predicting variables from randomly sampled reveal prefixes produces recurring attention patterns in the backbone that provide a model-dependent signal of predictive dependencies. We aggregate this signal into a reciprocal dependency graph and use a spectral teacher to derive continuous generation priorities. A lightweight OrderMLP integrated into the GPT backbone learns to predict these priorities from attention, incorporating order learning into the architecture within a single training run. Training gradually shifts toward the learned order, which is then frozen for subsequent autoregressive training and generation. The same mechanism adapts across modalities: adaptively it recovers near-L2R dependency structure in language, learns anatomically organized factorizations on human pose, and discovers a factorization on tabular data that places statistically and semantically related fields nearby, while improving downstream modeling metrics across all domains. The code is available at https://github.com/Chenhe-yang/OrderGPT/.
Chenhe Yang, Yuhuan Lyu, Tianyang Hu
SAGA Lab, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen
Autoregressive pretraining increasingly draws on heterogeneous data, making it important to understand how a model learns from an individual token. The next-token prediction objective naturally identifies a token's contribution with its own loss. However, each token is not only a prediction target but also context for what follows. Using controlled corruption, we decouple these two roles and find a reversal: making a noisy token easier to predict reduces its damage as a target but increases it as context. The same decoupling helps explain text generated by language models: generation selects each token by its fit to the prefix, while its role as context is never tested against an independently determined continuation, because that continuation is generated to fit it. At known corrupted positions, acting through the context can reduce damage that removing the token's own loss does not. Understanding and controlling what a model learns from a token therefore requires decoupling its roles.
Suqin Yuan, Runqi Lin, Kevin Qinghong Lin +4
University of Sydney · University of Oxford · Southeast University
Masked diffusion language models decode by iteratively unmasking tokens, where the unmasking order defines an "order of thought" that strongly influences generation quality yet is typically chosen heuristically. We derive a tractable upper bound on the sequential decoding mismatch, measured by the Kullback-Leibler divergence and expressed in terms of the model's pathwise log-likelihood, with tightness under sufficient model expressivity. This bound induces a dense self-aware reward over ordered trajectories, casting order selection as a principled policy optimization problem with a frozen denoiser. We instantiate this idea as Self-Aware Scheduling (SAS), which learns a lightweight order policy using Group Relative Policy Optimization and applies seamlessly to both any-order and semi-autoregressive decoding. On Sudoku with 1B MDM, SAS improves puzzle accuracy from 82.0% (best heuristic schedule) to 91.8%, and reaches 97.5% with second-stage fine-tuning along learned trajectories. On mathematical reasoning with LLaDA-8B, SAS improves pass@1 on GSM8K from 64% to 76% and on MBPP from 39.5% to 41%, consistently matching or exceeding heuristic schedules across generation lengths and block sizes. Project page: https://jimmyxu123.github.io/SAS
Jiawei Xu, Minghui Liu, Aakriti Agrawal +2
University of Maryland, College Park · University of California, Los Angeles.