Most multi-agent systems rely exclusively on autoregressive language models (ARMs) that are based on sequential generation. Although effective for fluent text, ARMs limit global reasoning and plan revision. On the other hand, Discrete Diffusion Language Models (DDLMs) enable non-sequential, globally revisable generation and have shown strong planning capabilities, but their limited text fluency hinders direct collaboration with ARMs. We introduce Latent-DARM, a latent-space communication framework bridging DDLM (planners) and ARM (executors), maximizing collaborative benefits. Across mathematical, scientific, and commonsense reasoning benchmarks, Latent-DARM outperforms text-based interfaces on average, improving accuracy from 27.0% to 36.0% on DART-5 and from 0.0% to 14.0% on AIME2024. Latent-DARM approaches the results of state-of-the-art reasoning models while using less than 2.2% of its token budget. This work advances multi-agent collaboration among agents with heterogeneous models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Accuracy–cost trade-offs across planner–executor configurations. Here DDLM refers to a LLada-8B-Instruct and ARM to a Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct model. DDLM → ARM, particularly with latent-space exchange, achieves higher reasoning accuracy at lower token budgets compared to ARM-only models.
Figure 2: Overview of the latent-space collaboration pipeline. A discrete diffusion language model (DDLM) generates a latent plan. The plan is projected directly into the autoregressive model (ARM) embedding space through a learned projector (in blue). The ARM then conditions on the plan and the question to produce the final answer.
Model / Setting
ARC-E
ARC-C
DART-1
DART-2
DART-3
DART-4
DART-5
AIME24
MMLU
Accuracy
DeepSeek-R1 (ARM only )
94.0
88.0
89.0
81.5
85.5
75.0
61.5
28.5
60.0
Qwen3-1.7B (ARM only)
92.0
86.0
89.5
86.0
83.0
73.0
49.0
8.5
68.5
Llama-3.2-3B (ARM only)
87.5
79.5
44.5
35.5
28.0
34.5
36.5
3.5
54.0
LLaDA-8B → Llama-3.2-3B (text-space)
90.5
82.5
53.5
43.0
35.5
30.0
27.0
0.0
52.5
LLaDA-8B → Llama-3.2-3B (latent-space)
Table 1: Evaluation of DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B and Qwen3-1.7B on reasoning benchmarks, including text-space vs. latent-space collaboration.
Figure 3: Accuracy comparison of text-space vs. latent-space collaboration.
Figure 4: Diagnostic configurations for attributing errors to planner or executor. Setup X tests whether failures stem from the planner: if replacing the diffusion planner (DDLM) with an autoregressive planner (ARM) fixes the output, the error is attributed to the DDLM. Setup Y tests executor reliability: if a diffusion executor succeeds where an ARM executor fails, the limitation lies in the executor.
Figure 5: Planner vs. executor failures in text- vs. latent-space collaboration. Results for LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct. Latent-space collaboration substantially reduces planning errors compared to text-space.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Simulation
D-3
R-4
LR-n
↑
↓
↓
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (Baseline)
98.47
3.05
0.64
LLaDA-8B-Instruct (256 tokens)
83.05
10.52
6.74
LLaDA-8B-Instruct (128 tokens)
93.15
5.33
3.43
LLaDA-8B-Instruct (64 tokens)
96.85
3.37
1.33
Dream-v0-7B-Instruct (256 tokens)
62.02
3.26
2.15
Appendix
Table 2: Repetition Evaluation
Benchmark
Planning Failures (%)
Execution Failures (%)
Error Gap (%)
LLaDA-8B + Llama-3.2-3B (Text-Space Pipeline)
DART-1
41.50
43.64
2.14
DART-2
21.43
24.14
2.71
DART-3
13.60
16.92
3.32
DART-4
11.11
15.79
4.68
DART-5
10.12
5.63
4.49
Appendix
Table 3: Performance comparison of planner vs. executor issues for LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct under Text-Space vs. Latent-Space collaboration.
Model / Combination
Setup
ARC-E
ARC-C
DART-1
DART-2
DART-3
DART-4
DART-5
AIME
MMLU
ARMs only
Qwen2.5-3B
ARM
91.0
86.5
58.0
34.0
29.5
17.5
11.5
1.0
61.0
ARM → ARM
89.5
81.5
64.0
49.0
30.5
24.0
16.0
0.0
59.0
Dream-v0-7B + Qwen2.5-3B
DDLM → ARM
92.0
86.0
65.5
40.5
31.0
25.0
12.5
0.5
60.5
LLaDA-8B + Qwen2.5-3B
DDLM → ARM
88.5
85.0
68.0
44.5
29.0
23.0
14.0
0.5
55.5
Qwen2.5-7B
ARM
94.5
90.5
68.0
48.5
35.0
35.0
19.5
2.5
67.0
Appendix
Table 4: Consolidated evaluation results on text-space collaboration across all model combinations and reasoning benchmarks. † Evaluated with enable_thinking=True , ‡ with enable_thinking=False .
Diffusion language models (dLLMs) are emerging as an alternative to autoregressive (AR) language models, yet dLLM agents largely inherit an interaction protocol designed for AR generation: once intermediate state is written, later observations can only be incorporated by appending more text. This is a poor match to a defining capability of dLLMs -- reconstructing earlier text conditioned on context that appears both before and after it. We ask whether this capability can support a different agent-state paradigm in which intermediate planning state is directly revisable as evidence arrives. We introduce DiffuPlan, a diffusion search agent that maintains a single editable planning state and reconstructs only the affected steps when later evidence resolves an entity or changes the search route. To support variable-length revisions, we introduce Expansion-Partition Marginalization (EPM), which marginalizes over equivalent expansion paths. We further adapt diffusion trajectory RL to multi-turn search. Across four multi-hop QA benchmarks, DiffuPlan achieves 50.24 average F1, outperforming strong AR search agents. More importantly, under identical data and training, editable planning state improves the diffusion agent by 2.44 F1 versus only 0.47 for its AR source model. These results show that dLLMs need not imitate append-only AR agents: revising committed state is a distinct agentic advantage.
Qisheng Zhou, Zhen Xiong, Qiaoyu Tan
New York University Shanghai · New York University
Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) generate text via iterative denoising but consistently underperform on multi-step reasoning. We hypothesize this gap stems from a coordination problem: AR models build coherence token-by-token, while diffusion models must coordinate all positions simultaneously. We propose plan conditioning, a training-free method that prepends a short (~100-token) natural-language plan from an AR model to the diffusion model's prompt. The plan serves as a frozen scaffold -- globally visible context that every token position can attend to from the first denoising step. On GSM8K, plan conditioning improves LLaDA-8B-Instruct from 75.6% to 87.2% (+11.6 percentage points), matching a same-size AR model (LLaMA 3.1 8B, 87.7%) despite a 6.4pp weaker baseline. On HumanEval, the gain is +12.8pp (37.2% to 50.0%), showing plans generalize to code. The same plans improve LLaMA by only +5.7pp on GSM8K and +1.3pp on HumanEval -- diffusion models benefit 2-10x more, supporting the coordination-problem hypothesis. Across 5 random seeds, plan-conditioned GSM8K accuracy has zero standard deviation, making diffusion inference highly stable. Ablations reveal the model follows plan strategy (wrong-strategy plans cause -16.3pp) but is robust to plan values (perturbed numbers: -1.1pp), and that planner quality has a sharp threshold: smaller Llama-class plans hurt (-1.6 to -6.8pp) while frontier plans provide the full lift. Attention analysis confirms the mechanism: plan tokens receive 1.8x excess attention during early denoising, declining to uniform as completion tokens solidify. Plan conditioning costs ~$0.002 per problem and adds ~2s of latency.
Large reasoning models improve performance by generating extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but this behavior becomes inefficient when applied to LLM agents. Current LLM agents often generate verbose textual reasoning at every decision step and allocate reasoning effort nearly uniformly across turns, leading to substantial inefficiency in multi-turn agentic trajectories. We propose Adaptive Latent Agentic Reasoning (ALAR), a dual-mode framework that uses compact latent reasoning for routine turns and selectively escalates to explicit chain-of-thought when deeper deliberation is needed. ALAR learns latent reasoning by using the agent's actions as supervision anchors and is further optimized to use latent reasoning when it is sufficient for task success and reserve explicit CoT for harder decisions. Experiments on agentic search and tool-use benchmarks show that ALAR maintains comparable or better task accuracy while substantially reducing generated tokens by up to 43.6% in search and 84.6% in tool use. These results demonstrate that ALAR improves the accuracy-efficiency trade-off of LLM agents by reducing unnecessary textual reasoning while preserving explicit deliberation for harder decision steps.
Dongwon Jung, Peng Shi, Yi Zhang +2
University of California, Davis · University of Waterloo · Greenshoe, Inc.