DAPD: Dependency-Aware Parallel Decoding via Attention for Diffusion LLMs
Authors: Bumjun Kim, Dongjae Jeon, Moongyu Jeon, Albert No
Organizations: Department of Artificial Intelligence, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea · Department of Computer Science, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea
Parallel decoding for Diffusion LLMs (dLLMs) is difficult because each denoising step provides only token-wise marginal distributions, while unmasking multiple tokens simultaneously requires accounting for inter-token dependencies. We propose Dependency-Aware Parallel Decoding (DAPD), a simple, training-free decoding method that uses self-attention to induce a conditional dependency graph over masked tokens. At each iteration, edges in this graph capture strong token interactions, while non-edges indicate weak dependence. Parallel decoding is then reduced to selecting an independent set on the graph and unmasking the selected tokens in parallel. This avoids co-updating strongly coupled tokens without auxiliary models or retraining. Experiments on LLaDA and Dream show that DAPD improves the accuracy-steps trade-off over existing methods and enables more globally distributed parallel updates that better exploit the any-order generation capability of dLLMs. The project is available at https://ai-isl.github.io/dapd
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of unmasking trajectories for DAPD (ours) and Fast-dLLM during the initial 50% of decoding steps. While DAPD processes independent questions simultaneously to maximize global parallelism, Fast-dLLM exhibits a highly sequential unmasking pattern. Other baselines demonstrate similar sequential behaviors (see Figs. 9 , 10 , 11 and 12 ). Detailed discussion is provided in Sec. 6 .
Figure 2: Illustration of synthetic MRF dataset.
Edge Detection
Degree Estimation
AUC ↑
Ratio (Edge/Non-edge) ↑
OVR ↓
0.928
2.204
0.04
Table 1: Metrics for edge detection and degree estimation. AUC and edge/non-edge attention ratio measure edge detection, and OVR measures degree estimation. Results are averaged over 100 random sampling paths and all decoding steps. Further step-wise and layer-choice results are in Tabs. 9 and 10 .
Figure 3: Accuracy–Steps trade-off of decoding strategies on two dLLMs. Top : LLaDA. Bottom : Dream. Left : Code tasks (HumanEval, MBPP). Middle : Math tasks (GSM8K, Math500). Right : Instruction-following task (IFEval). Markers denote decoding strategies. For LLaDA, baselines are shown with block decoding and EOS suppression settings (“4 Blocks” and “EOS-Inf”), while DAPD is evaluated in the single-block regime by default. For Dream, all methods are evaluated in the single-block regime. Colored lines indicate different tasks. The exact numerical values corresponding to this plot are provided in Tab. 3 .
Figure 4: Score–steps trade-off on ParallelBench using LLaDA. Exact numerical values are provided in Tab. 4 .
Figure 5: Left: Distribution of tokens unmasked during the initial 40% of decoding. Progress is normalized by total steps per sample and method. Heatmaps show the average unmasking trajectory, where lighter colors indicate earlier unmasking and white regions denote tokens remaining masked. Vertical color bars (labeled above) indicate average starting positions for the five questions; FD denotes Fast-dLLM. Right: Average number of isolated segments per decoding step, characterizing sequence fragmentation. Notably, DAPD exhibits a distinct unmasking pattern, whereas baselines show highly similar behaviors.
Method
Acc. ↑
Steps (Speedup) ↓
Original
52.64
256.0 (1.00 × )
Fast-dLLM
52.12
124.4 (2.06 × )
KLASS
52.2
177.4 (1.44 × )
EB-Sampler
51.2
131.3 (1.95 × )
DAPD (Ours)
52.08
66.2 (3.87 × )
Table 2: Accuracy and average decoding steps, with relative speedup measured against step-by-step LLaDA decoding strategy. “Original” denotes confidence-based token-by-token decoding.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
HumanEval
MBPP
GSM8K
Math500
IFEval
Method
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
LLaDA
Fast-dLLM
37.2
92.1
20.6
41.5
76.8
72.8
28.0
95.6
58.3
100.0
EB-Sampler
37.2
110.4
19.4
52.6
76.1
86.9
28.2
113.2
57.0
136.3
KLASS
37.8
149.4
26.0
53.9
75.6
93.9
26.4
118.6
58.4
139.0
DAPD-Staged
36.6
45.2
40.4
37.6
71.7
48.9
29.0
58.8
62.0
50.1
Appendix
Table 3: Numerical results for the LLaDA and Dream experiments, including the settings visualized in Fig. 3 . For LLaDA, the baseline results (Fast-dLLM, EB-Sampler, and KLASS) are reported under four-block decoding, since their single-block variants suffer severe performance degradation due to EOS overflow. For Dream, all methods are evaluated under a unified single-block decoding setup. DAPD-Staged denotes the main variant that applies dependency-graph selection and, after the remaining mask ratio falls below 50%, admits positions with confidence >0.9 into the independent-set selection procedure. DAPD-Direct denotes the optional acceleration variant that, at each decoding step, first commits positions with confidence =1.0 and then applies dependency-aware independent-set selection to the remaining masked positions. EOS-suppressed single-block baseline results are reported separately in Tab. 5 .
Words → Sentence
Paraphrase
Waiting Line
Puzzle
Method
Score
Steps
Score
Steps
Score
Steps
Score
Steps
Fast-dLLM
78.2
27.3
60.4
30.8
55.9
9.9
29.6
22.6
EB-Sampler
77.7
35.4
60.5
44.6
59.8
23.9
28.6
30.0
KLASS
78.0
34.9
60.7
39.8
57.2
20.5
30.1
29.6
DAPD-Staged
88.2
19.1
59.2
24.6
55.3
18.7
27.3
18.8
DAPD-Direct
86.5
17.9
59.4
18.9
54.8
10.8
23.4
20.1
Appendix
Table 4: Numerical results for ParallelBench, including the settings visualized in Fig. 4 .
HumanEval
MBPP
GSM8K
Math500
IFEval
Method
Setting
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
Acc.
Steps
KLASS
1 block
11.0
97.3
19.8
43.3
26.3
72.6
3.0
83.4
40.1
96.5
1 block + EOS-Inf
38.4
170.0
41.4
177.1
64.8
124.4
27.4
155.3
64.9
221.8
4 blocks
37.8
149.4
26.0
53.9
75.6
93.9
26.4
118.6
58.4
139.0
Fast-dLLM
1 block
10.4
40.7
9.6
34.2
7.5
89.4
1.8
76.4
41.7
31.7
1 block + EOS-Inf
37.2
107.9
40.4
153.1
68.5
110.0
27.8
132.9
64.7
178.4
Appendix
Table 5: Accuracy (%) and average decoding steps under single-block, EOS-suppressed single-block, and four-block decoding. Without EOS suppression, the single-block baselines suffer severe performance degradation due to EOS overflow ( Kim et al., 2026 ) . EOS-Inf mitigates this collapse, but typically requires substantially more decoding steps. The four-block setting is used for the main comparison.
Figure 6: Analysis of τmin . Left: LLaDA. Right: Dream.
Method
Acc. ↑
Steps ↓
TPS ↑
DAPD
36.6
45.2
106.0
Fast-dLLM
37.2
92.1
51.4
EB-Sampler
37.2
110.4
39.2
KLASS
37.8
149.4
25.6
Original
39.0
256.0
20.4
Appendix
Table 6: End-to-end throughput comparison on HumanEval. Accuracy, average decoding steps, and tokens per second (TPS) are reported. “Original” denotes confidence-based token-by-token decoding.
Task
Length
Acc. ↑
Steps ↓
TPS ↑
HumanEval
256
36.6
45.2
106.0
512
32.9
55.9
106.6
1024
31.7
67.5
93.6
GSM8K
256
70.7
48.2
33.9
512
72.8
68.4
39.0
1024
70.7
79.9
45.8
Appendix
Table 7: Longer-generation evaluation of DAPD-Staged. Accuracy, average decoding steps, and tokens per second (TPS) are reported for different maximum generation lengths.
Method
Blocks
Acc. ↑
TPS ↑
1
36.6
106.0
4
37.8
57.1
8
39.6
43.6
DAPD
16
41.5
34.6
Fast-dLLM
4
37.2
51.4
EB-Sampler
4
37.2
39.2
Appendix
Table 8: Block-wise decoding evaluation on HumanEval. Accuracy and tokens per second (TPS) are reported under different numbers of generation blocks.
Steps
Edge Detection
Degree Estimation
AUC ↑
Ratio (Edge/Non-edge) ↑
OVR ↓
1
0.923±0.00
2.19±0.00
0.00±0.00
2
0.923±0.02
2.21±0.12
0.04±0.01
3
0.919±0.04
2.18±0.23
0.05±0.01
4
0.916±0.04
2.17±0.21
0.08±0.02
5
0.937±0.05
2.23±0.24
0.05±0.01
Appendix
Table 9: Edge detection and degree estimation metrics across decoding steps, reported as mean ± standard deviation over sampling paths.
Layer Selection
AUC ↑
Ratio (Edge/Non-edge) ↑
OVR ↓
Last 2 layers
0.93
2.20
0.04
Last 1 layer
0.92
2.16
0.06
Last 4 layers
0.90
2.06
0.08
All layers
0.87
1.95
0.15
First 4 layers
0.81
1.81
0.22
First 2 layers
0.78
1.72
0.29
Appendix
Table 10: Layer-selection ablation for attention-based dependency estimation on the synthetic MRF dataset.
Figure 7: Illustrative example of DAPD. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 8: Illustrative example of DAPD. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 9: Illustrative example of EB-Sampler. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 10: Illustrative example of EB-Sampler. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 11: Illustrative example of KLASS. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 12: Illustrative example of KLASS. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 13: Illustrative example of Fast-dLLM. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Figure 14: Illustrative example of Fast-dLLM. Five independent questions (top) and their unmasked states across decoding steps.
Discrete diffusion language models (dLLMs) accelerate text generation by unmasking multiple tokens in parallel. However, parallel decoding introduces a distributional mismatch: it approximates the joint conditional using a fully factorized product of per-token marginals, which degrades output quality when selected tokens are strongly dependent. We propose DEMASK (DEpendency-guided unMASKing), a lightweight dependency predictor that attaches to the final hidden states of a dLLM. In a single forward pass, it estimates pairwise conditional influences between masked positions. Using these predictions, a greedy selection algorithm identifies positions with bounded cumulative dependency for simultaneous unmasking. Under a sub-additivity assumption, we prove this bounds the total variation distance between our parallel sampling and the model's joint. Empirically, DEMASK achieves 1.7-2.2× speedup on Dream-7B while matching or improving accuracy compared to confidence-based and KL-based baselines.
Liran Ringel, Ameen Ali, Yaniv Romano
Department of Computer Science, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology · Blavatnik School of Computer Science and AI, Tel Aviv, Israel
We present DMax, a new paradigm for efficient diffusion language models (dLLMs). It mitigates error accumulation in parallel decoding, enabling aggressive decoding parallelism while preserving generation quality. Unlike conventional masked dLLMs that decode through a binary mask-to-token transition, DMax reformulates decoding as a progressive self-refinement from mask embeddings to token embeddings. At the core of our approach is On-Policy Uniform Training, a novel training strategy that efficiently unifies masked and uniform dLLMs, equipping the model to recover clean tokens from both masked inputs and its own erroneous predictions. Building on this foundation, we further propose Soft Parallel Decoding. We represent each intermediate decoding state as an interpolation between the predicted token embedding and the mask embedding, enabling iterative self-revising in embedding space. Extensive experiments across a variety of benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of DMax. Compared with the original LLaDA-2.0-mini, our method improves TPF on GSM8K from 2.04 to 5.47 while preserving accuracy. On MBPP, it increases TPF from 2.71 to 5.86 while maintaining comparable performance. On two H200 GPUs, our model achieves an average of 1,338 TPS at batch size 1. Code is available at: https://github.com/czg1225/DMax
Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising masked token sequences. Although dLLMs can predict all masked positions in parallel within each step, the large number of denoising iterations still makes inference expensive. This cost can be reduced spatially by unmasking multiple tokens per step, or temporally by collapsing multiple denoising steps into one verification call. We propose Parallel Speculative Decoding (PSD), a training-free framework that jointly improves inference along both axes. Using the confidence scores from a single forward pass, PSD selects positions to unmask via a configurable, adaptive unmasking policy and constructs multi-depth speculative drafts without extra model calls. A final batched verification pass then applies hierarchical acceptance, keeping the deepest draft that remains consistent with the updated predictions. Experiments on three dLLMs across reasoning and code generation tasks show that PSD achieves favorable trade-offs between inference efficiency and generation quality, reaching up to 5.5× tokens per forward pass with accuracy comparable to greedy decoding.
Shengyin Sun, Yiming Li, Renxi Liu +7
Department of Computer Science City University of Hong Kong · Huawei Technologies · City University of Hong Kong