Discrete diffusion language models (dLLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising a masked sequence. However, standard dLLMs condition each denoising step solely on the current hard-masked sequence, while intermediate continuous representations are discarded after sampling and remasking. We term this bottleneck the Information Island issue: continuous information remains isolated within individual denoising steps and fails to propagate across the trajectory. This bottleneck is especially harmful for reasoning, which requires intermediate reasoning state to be preserved and updated across many denoising steps. To address this limitation, we introduce MetaState, a lightweight recurrent augmentation that equips a frozen dLLM backbone with persistent, fixed-size working memory. MetaState comprises three modules with a shared time conditioner: a cross-attention Mixer that reads backbone activations into memory slots, a GRU-style Updater that integrates information across steps, and a cross-attention Injector that writes the updated memory back into the backbone. We train these modules with a dedicated K-step unrolling pipeline to learn multi-step dynamics. MetaState adds only ∼0.6% trainable parameters while keeping the backbone frozen, and consistently improves reasoning performance over frozen baselines on mathematical reasoning and code generation benchmarks, with an average gain of 4.5 percentage points across all evaluations.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Information Island issue in discrete diffusion: sampling and remasking compress continuous hidden activations into discrete tokens, imposing a lossy bottleneck between denoising steps. MetaState addresses this issue by maintaining a persistent state across steps.
Figure 2: Performance comparison between MetaState and frozen baselines on reasoning benchmarks for LLaDA-8B and Dream-7B in both Instruct and Base versions.
Figure 3: Overview of the MetaState architecture. The three modules (Injector, Mixer, Updater) and the shared time conditioner form a recurrent loop around the frozen backbone, propagating a persistent state across denoising steps.
Dream Backbone (7B)
LLaDA Backbone (8B)
Model
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
Avg.
Base
73.7
37.6
54.9
52.6
67.4
28.8
33.5
25.6
46.8
+ MetaState
76.7
46.4
59.2
53.6
77.9
37.0
39.6
33.0
52.9
Δ vs. Base
+3.0
+8.8
+4.3
+1.0
+10.5
+8.2
+6.1
+7.4
+6.2
Instruct
74.8
45.0
56.1
51.0
78.5
36.8
37.2
26.0
50.7
+ MetaState
78.1
46.6
59.8
55.0
79.5
37.8
39.6
32.2
53.6
Table 1: Main results on 4 different benchmarks (generation length 256, block size 32, dual cache). MATH = MATH-500, HE = HumanEval. Δ denotes improvement over the corresponding baseline. Bold marks the best result per column within each backbone group.
Dream-Instruct (7B)
LLaDA-Instruct (8B)
Method
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
Avg.
Instruct baseline
74.8
45.0
56.1
51.0
78.5
36.8
37.2
26.0
50.7
+ Soft Diffusion
79.1
45.8
60.4
52.0
78.7
37.8
37.8
29.0
52.6
+ MetaState
78.1
46.6
59.8
55.0
79.5
37.8
39.6
32.2
53.6
+ MetaState †
79.4
46.4
59.2
55.6
80.3
37.6
40.9
32.4
54.0
Table 2: Compatibility with Soft Diffusion ( Zhu et al., 2025c ) . MetaState and Soft Diffusion target different levels of the pipeline and can be combined. † denotes ‘+ Soft Diffusion’. Bold marks the best result per column. Hyperparameter details are provided in Appendix A.7 .
Dream-Instruct (7B)
LLaDA-Instruct (8B)
Model Variants
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
Avg.
Backbone only
74.8
45.0
56.1
51.0
78.5
36.8
37.2
26.0
50.7
MetaState (full)
78.1
46.6
59.8
55.0
79.5
37.8
39.6
32.2
53.6
w/o recurrence
77.6
45.0
61.0
53.4
62.6
32.6
23.8
24.6
47.6
w/o BPTT
76.7
43.4
59.2
53.2
78.2
34.4
38.4
33.0
52.1
w/o time cond.
77.2
44.8
57.9
54.6
78.9
36.2
39.0
31.8
52.6
Table 3: Ablation studies. Each row modifies one component while keeping the rest of MetaState intact. MLP variants are parameter-matched. MATH = MATH-500, HE = HumanEval. Bold : full model. Gray : backbone without MetaState (from Table 1 ).
Appendix figures & tables23 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: A step-by-step denoising trajectory. Each denoising step shows both the full argmax model prediction ( out ) and the remasked sequence ( in ) that is actually passed to the next step.
Figure 5: Comparison of Pass@1 (t) and EverPass@1 (t) across denoising steps on GSM8K with LLaDA-Instruct-8B.
Steps
Orig. PASS
Our PASS
Orig. EVER
Our EVER
gain
Orig. gap
Our gap
1–256
49.58
54.80
65.88
69.05
+5.23
16.30
14.25
256
63.00
66.00
79.00
79.00
+3.00
16.00
13.00
1–85
31.59
40.42
45.96
54.84
+8.84
14.38
14.41
86–170
56.34
59.87
73.89
74.95
+3.53
17.55
15.08
171–256
60.67
64.01
77.65
77.28
+3.34
16.98
13.27
Appendix
Table 4: GSM8K trajectory diagnostic for LLaDA-Instruct. EverPass@1 counts an example as correct if any intermediate full prediction along the denoising trajectory is correct. The gap is EverPass@1 minus Pass@1 .
Subset
Metric
Dream
LLaDA
1
Original response-step cosine, mean
0.9749
0.9775
2
Original response-step cosine, mean
0.9742
0.9769
1
MetaState state Frobenius norm, mean
31.42
52.04
2
MetaState state Frobenius norm, mean
31.21
51.98
1
MetaState mean slot norm, mean
3.93
6.50
2
MetaState mean slot norm, mean
3.90
6.50
Appendix
Table 5: GSM8K state and memory diagnostics. Two 128-example subsets show the same pattern: the original consecutive-step hidden-state cosine is nearly identical across backbones, while MetaState memory activity is larger and more variable on LLaDA.
Backbone
Target
Slice
MetaState MRR
Best control MRR
Gap
LLaDA
gold_intermediate
all
0.663
0.434
+0.229
LLaDA
gold_intermediate
not_visible
0.588
0.363
+0.225
LLaDA
gold_intermediate
not_in_question
0.646
0.410
+0.235
LLaDA
model_final
all
0.308
0.220
+0.088
LLaDA
model_final
not_visible
0.318
0.220
+0.099
LLaDA
model_final
not_in_question
0.311
0.220
+0.092
Appendix
Table 6: GSM8K numeric semantic retention probe. The probe reads the incoming MetaState memory before injection and ranks candidate numbers. Controls include random ranking, constant-state features, question-number preference, and visible-text-number preference.
Symbol
Description
Value
M
Number of memory slots
64
Ds
State dimension per slot
1024
dc
Time conditioner output dimension
1024
dm
Mixer bottleneck dimension
768
db
Injector bottleneck dimension
768
nq
Query heads (Mixer & Injector)
8
Appendix
Table 7: Architecture hyperparameters for the recurrent modules. All symbols correspond to notation introduced in § 4 .
Parameter
Value
Optimization
Optimizer
AdamW
Learning rate
2×10−5
LR schedule
cosine, 5% linear warmup
Gradient clipping
max norm 1.0
β1,β2
0.9,0.95
Appendix
Table 8: Training and inference hyperparameters (shared across LLaDA and Dream backbones).
Module / Component
LLaDA
Dream
SharedTimeConditioner
2,102,016
2,102,016
Sinusoidal MLP ( 256→1024→1024 )
1,312,768
1,312,768
Content path (norm + proj + gate)
789,248
789,248
Mixer
17,899,264
17,506,048
Slot self-attention ( Ds space, GQA)
3,146,752
3,146,752
Down-projections † ( dm×Ds+dm×D )
3,932,160
3,538,944
Appendix
Table 9: Per-module parameter breakdown of the MetaState recurrent modules for each backbone ( Ds=1024 , dm=db=768 , M=64 ). Rows marked † are the only backbone-dependent components.
Backbone
Method
GSM8K
MATH
HE
MBPP
Dream-Instruct
Soft Diffusion
(0.9, 0.15)
(0.9, 0.1)
(0.9, 0.2)
(0.9, 0.2)
Dream-Instruct
+ MetaState
(0.2, 0.1)
(0.2, 0.2)
(0.9, 0.1)
(0.2, 0.1)
LLaDA-Instruct
Soft Diffusion
(0.2, 0.1)
(0.2, 0.15)
(0.9, 0.2)
(0.2, 0.2)
LLaDA-Instruct
+ MetaState
(0.2, 0.1)
(0.9, 0.2)
(0.2, 0.15)
(0.2, 0.2)
Appendix
Table 10: Best Soft Diffusion hyperparameters (p,rf) for each method, backbone, and benchmark. All values selected by grid search over p∈{0.2,0.9} and rf∈{0.1,0.15,0.2} .
Backbone
Metric
Soft Diff. avg
Soft Diff. + Meta avg
Δ
LLaDA-Instruct
GSM8K flexible EM
78.14
79.48
+1.34
LLaDA-Instruct
HumanEval pass@1
36.89
39.12
+2.23
LLaDA-Instruct
MBPP pass@1
28.27
31.77
+3.50
LLaDA-Instruct
MATH-500 math verify
37.23
37.20
-0.03
Dream-Instruct
GSM8K flexible EM
76.25
78.27
+2.02
Dream-Instruct
HumanEval pass@1
57.52
56.91
-0.61
Appendix
Table 11: Soft Diffusion average over all six grid configurations. Averaging removes dependence on a single selected (p,rf) pair.
Dream-Instruct (7B)
LLaDA-Instruct (8B)
Method
GSM8K
HumanEval
GSM8K
HumanEval
Avg.
Instruct
74.8
56.1
78.5
37.2
61.7
+ LoRA
76.0
55.5
79.2
39.0
62.4
+ MetaState
78.1
59.8
79.5
39.6
64.3
+ MetaState †
79.4
59.2
80.3
40.9
65.0
Appendix
Table 12: Comparison with LoRA fine-tuning on Instruct backbones. LoRA ( r=32 , α=64 , all-linear) is trained on the same 50k Tülu-3 data with matched optimization hyperparameters. † denotes ‘+ Soft Diffusion’. Bold marks the best result per column.
Backbone
Block size
Original
MetaState
Gain
Dream-Instruct
16
78.24
78.85
+0.61
Dream-Instruct
32
74.75
78.09
+3.34
Dream-Instruct
64
65.43
77.18
+11.75
Dream-Instruct
128
52.01
74.83
+22.82
Dream-Instruct
256
50.34
53.07
+2.73
LLaDA-Instruct
16
77.94
78.62
+0.68
Appendix
Table 13: GSM8K block-size sweep. Block size changes the per-block denoising trajectory length; MetaState is positive at all tested sizes.
Model
Threshold
Original
MetaState
Gain
Orig. fwd/seq
Meta fwd/seq
Dream-Base
0.95
73.16
76.42
+3.26
156.34
78.50
Dream-Base
0.85
70.43
75.28
+4.85
139.10
67.14
Dream-Base
0.80
70.58
74.15
+3.57
131.05
63.10
Dream-Base
0.75
69.60
73.16
+3.56
123.63
58.82
Dream-Base
0.70
66.26
70.20
+3.94
117.02
54.75
Dream-Base
0.65
64.37
67.48
+3.11
110.39
51.78
Appendix
Table 14: GSM8K confidence-threshold sweep at generation length 256, block size 32, and dual cache. Lower thresholds reduce the effective number of denoising updates. MetaState improves all matched cells.
Length
GSM8K Orig.
GSM8K Meta
Gain
MBPP Orig.
MBPP Meta
Gain
128
69.98
71.87
+1.89
49.80
52.60
+2.80
256
74.75
78.09
+3.34
51.80
55.00
+3.20
384
75.89
78.85
+2.96
50.20
55.00
+4.80
512
75.59
79.83
+4.24
50.40
54.20
+3.80
768
74.30
79.53
+5.23
51.40
55.20
+3.80
1024
75.51
78.70
+3.19
52.20
54.60
+2.40
Appendix
Table 15: Dream-Instruct generation-length sweep. MetaState remains positive on GSM8K and MBPP from 128 to 1024 tokens.
Model
Original
MetaState
Gain
Gain / pooled std
Dream-Base
73.92±0.80
76.00±0.88
+2.08
2.47
Dream-Instruct
75.19±0.88
78.64±0.67
+3.45
4.41
LLaDA-Base
67.87±0.75
77.67±0.67
+9.80
13.78
LLaDA-Instruct
78.16±0.86
78.92±0.98
+0.76
0.82
Appendix
Table 16: GSM8K multi-seed robustness. MetaState improves all four settings across seeds, with large gains on Base backbones and smaller improvements on Instruct backbones.
Figure 6: Sensitivity to the dense-reveal loss mixing ratio λd . Increasing λd from 0.6 to 0.9 yields modest drops in average scores.
Figure 7: Sensitivity to the number of memory slots M . Increasing M from 32 to 48 yields modest gains on most benchmarks, while further increasing to 64 produces modest drops.
Figure 8: Sensitivity to training data size. MetaState achieves competitive performance even with 30k training examples, and accuracy remains stable as the dataset increases to 50k.
Figure 9: Sensitivity to the unroll depth K . Performance is broadly stable across K∈{3,4,5} , with average accuracy varying by less than one point.
Family
Data
Runtime
Dream-Instruct
50k
2.78 h (10012.8 s)
LLaDA-Instruct
50k
1.89 h (6787.9 s)
LLaDA-1.5
50k
1.87 h (6742.1 s)
Appendix
Table 17: Training wall-clock for the 50k Tulu-3 subset. The backbone remains frozen; the listed time is the offline cost of training the external MetaState interface.
Family
Raw tok/s
Drop
Sample latency
Overhead
Dream-Instruct
162.66 → 134.03
17.60%
3096.82 → 3664.79 ms
+15.49%
LLaDA-Instruct
150.20 → 127.47
15.13%
3815.96 → 4427.21 ms
+13.82%
Appendix
Table 18: GSM8K inference throughput and latency. The current implementation adds about 14–15% latency and 15–18% raw throughput overhead under the main decoding setup.
Family
Module size
State / seq
Allocated memory
Delta
Peak delta
Dream
89.18 MiB
0.125 MiB
14526.15 → 14635.34 MiB
+109.19 MiB
+181.50 MiB
LLaDA
91.43 MiB
0.125 MiB
15292.51 → 15402.32 MiB
+109.81 MiB
+117.84 MiB
Appendix
Table 19: Memory overhead. The bf16 module footprint is about 90 MiB, and peak allocated memory rises by less than 1% for both backbones.
Benchmark
Original
MetaState
Gain
GSM8K
80.74
82.56
+1.82
HumanEval
37.80
38.41
+0.61
MBPP
28.20
35.60
+7.40
MATH-500
37.40
38.00
+0.60
Appendix
Table 20: MetaState on LLaDA 1.5, a newer RL-optimized dLLM backbone. MetaState improves all four metrics under the same protocol, supporting transfer beyond the original LLaDA and Dream checkpoints.
Masked diffusion language models (dLLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising masked tokens with bidirectional attention. Extending reasoning across generation chunks normally requires keeping earlier generated text in context. We ask whether a dLLM can instead continue reasoning after that text is cleared, using only a fixed-size carried state. We implement this state as a small number of register tokens: dedicated fixed-position tokens whose continuous hidden states are trained to carry reasoning progress across generation chunks. We post-train dLLMs to decode a chunk of text, clear it while preserving the register values, and continue decoding from the prompt and carried state. In our main comparisons on LLaDA and Dream, registers outperform discrete-text carry on every benchmark, with gains of up to 8.5 points on math and 19.5 points on code. Registers are especially effective for bounded code generation, where correct programs usually span several chunks. Finally, registers can be further refined with reinforcement learning on long-horizon reasoning tasks.
Albert Ge, Chandan Singh, Yufan Zhuang +3
University of Wisconsin–Madison · Microsoft Research · UC San Diego
Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) are a promising alternative to autoregressive generation. However, reasoning-oriented post-training for dLLMs remains challenging. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) for dLLMs requires dense but often off-policy masked states, while reinforcement learning (RL) relies on sparse rewards or value modeling. This paper proposes trace-based on-policy distillation (TOPD), a teacher-supervised framework that transfers reasoning ability to a target dLLM without reward estimation. The key idea is to supervise a dLLM on its own denoising trajectory, focusing on the trace-aligned token decisions that form the final response. Specifically, TOPD samples on-policy diffusion trajectories from the target dLLM, obtains teacher token distributions from a teacher model on the corresponding partially denoised states, and updates the target dLLM with a token-level Reverse Kullback-Leibler (Reverse-KL) objective. This design preserves dense teacher supervision while aligning training with the model's own denoising states. On mathematical reasoning benchmarks, TOPD enables SDAR-4B-Chat to match the MATH500 accuracy of its RL-trained counterpart TraDo-4B-Instruct, with gains of +5.7 under static evaluation and +4.5 under dynamic evaluation. Compared with the RL-trained counterpart, TOPD achieves this with 4× fewer rollout rounds, corresponding to an estimated 96.0× to-accuracy model-compute speedup.
Haolin Ren, Ziyang Huang, Chenhao Yuan +2
Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
Despite the success of discrete diffusion language models (dLMs) for fast parallel decoding, their non-smooth, high-dimensional space hinders trajectory steering for reasoning and inference acceleration. To overcome this, we present Sigma, the first large-scale (3B/8B) continuous dLM built on steerable, low-dimensional ODE/SDE latent trajectories. Trained blockwise via likelihood optimization, Sigma jointly denoises Gaussian-corrupted token embeddings while learning an optimal embedding geometry. To accelerate training, Sigma leverages pre-trained weights from autoregressive (AR) models for warm-starting. During inference, we identify classifier-free guidance and score temperature as essential for high-fidelity reasoning and coding. Across comprehensive math reasoning and coding evaluations against state-of-the-art discrete counterparts (masked dLMs and AR baselines), Sigma achieves competitive performance with discrete models on standard benchmarks (e.g., GSM8K, Minerva, HumanEval, MBPP) after pre-training and on challenging reasoning tasks (e.g., MATH-500, AIME) after supervised fine-tuning. Beyond performance parity, we uncover key structural properties unique to continuous dLMs: (i) embedding-space steering effectively governs the quality-diversity trade-off, yielding strong pass@k performance and (ii) continuous trajectories enable graceful degradation for low NFEs and efficient distillation. These establish continuous dLMs as a promising paradigm for efficient language generation.
Zhihan Yang, Wei Guo, Jean-Marie Lemercier +14
NVIDIA · Cornell University · Georgia Institute of Technology