Diffusion language models (DLMs) have emerged as a promising alternative to autoregressive (AR) models, offering sub-linear generation latency and bidirectional capabilities that are particularly appealing for code generation and editing. Achieving sub-linear latency in discrete DLMs requires predicting multiple tokens in parallel. However, standard DLMs sample tokens independently from conditional marginal distributions, failing to capture the joint dependencies among concurrently generated tokens. As a result, they often lead to syntactic inconsistencies and break multi-token structures. In this work, we introduce CoDiLA (Coherent Diffusion with Local Autoregression), a method that reconciles parallel sampling with local dependency modeling. Rather than forcing the DLM to resolve fine-grained syntax, CoDiLA delegates local decoding to a small, auxiliary AR model operating on the diffusion latents. This design allows for parallel generation while ensuring sequential validity within a block and maintaining core DLM capabilities, including bidirectional modeling across blocks. We demonstrate that using a highly compact auxiliary AR model (e.g., 0.6B parameters) effectively eliminates coherence artifacts, establishing a new Pareto frontier for accuracy and speed in code generation benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our CoDiLA in action. a) An example of incoherent text generated by Dream-Coder-Instruct-7B in the first iteration. Due to independent modeling of marginal distributions, it predicts the incoherent token “problem” (Top-1). b) This work enforces local coherence using a block-wise AR model conditioned on soft local tokens. In this example, it recovers coherence by retrieving the correct token “(list” from the Top-3 candidates. Displayed prompt was simplified for illustrative purposes.
Figure 2: CoDiLA with a block size of B=4 . This example depicts the prediction of the first block ( b1 ). First, the DLM computes the token-wise conditional marginal probability vectors ( πtj ). Next, we perform soft-conditioning by computing the expected embedding ( etj ) over the AR model’s embedding matrix ( Eϕ ), weighted by these marginals. Finally, the AR model receives these soft tokens, encapsulated by <think> and < \ think> boundary tokens, to autoregressively decode a locally coherent sequence.
Figure 3: Larger block sizes ( B ) reduce the training loss. We compute the average perplexity weighted by the masking ratio (see Equation ( 2 )), and display the moving average over 10 samples. The forward process always masks blocks of 32 contiguous tokens.
Figure 4: Inference with static parallelism. We report on Pass@1 (%) vs. Throughput (tokens/sec, batch-size 1) on a single NVIDIA A100-80GB GPU. We compare the base DLM ( Xie et al., 2025 ) , ADJUST ( Bansal and Sanghavi, 2025 ) , and our CoDiLA, all built on Dream-Coder-Instruct-7B. Parallelism is controlled by unmasking a fixed number of tokens per iteration. CoDiLA consistently achieves higher accuracy at equivalent throughput levels.
Model
K = B = 2
K = B = 4
K = B = 8
Dream-Coder-Instruct-7B
18
38
70
CoDiLA
4
13
16
Table 1: Syntax errors (%) on HumanEval.
Figure 5: Inference with dynamic parallelism. We operate a dynamic CoDiLA ( B=4 ) with different entropy thresholds ( τ ).
P@1 (%)
Tokens/step
Deepseek-Coder-6.7B †
45.7
1
Seed-Coder-8B †
59.3
1
Qwen2.5-Coder-7B †
58.7
1
DreamOn ( K=1 )
62.5
1
DreamOn ( K=2 )
53.1
2
DreamOn+CoDiLA ( τ=0.2 )
62.5
1.3
Table 2: Multi-line code infilling on HumanEval-Infilling. † Baseline results are taken from Wu et al. (2025) .
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Configuration
HumanEval/+
MBPP/+
BigCodeBench
Max Generation Length
768
512
1024
Temperature
0.1
0.1
0.1
Top- p
0.8
0.8
0.8
Block Size B
{2,4,8}
{2,4,8}
{2,4,8}
Appendix
Table 3: Hyperparameter configurations across different benchmarks.
K=1
K=B=2
K=B=4
K=B=8
P@1
TPS
P@1
TPS
P@1
TPS
P@1
TPS
HumanEval
Dream-Coder
74.4
9
54.9
19
24.4
37
5.5
74
CoDiLA (Softmax)
68.9
18
51.8
33
29.9
60
CoDiLA (Top-5)
63.4
18
56.1
33
28.0
58
CoDiLA (Top-3)
61.0
18
50.0
31
31.7
59
Appendix
Table 4: Impact of conditioning strategy. Comparison of Pass@1 (%) scores and throughput (TPS) between baseline Dream-Coder-Instruct-7B and CoDiLA with both soft- and Top-K-conditioning.
Figure 6: Ablation of the AR model size. CoDiLA does not require large AR models.
Candidate Scope (Blocks)
Pass@1
TPS
10 (default)
51.8%
34.4
20
49.3%
32.7
30
45.1%
32.1
50
42.1%
29.5
Appendix
Table 5: Increasing the lookahead window for block decoding selection has a negligible impact on the throughput (TPS), but impacts accuracy due to premature EOS decoding. We report CoDiLA with B=4 using static parallelism on HumanEval.
Figure 7: Selecting the blocks to decode globally based on DLM entropy performs comparable to a fixed lookahead window.
B=2
B=4
B=8
Pass@1
TPS
Pass@1
TPS
Pass@1
TPS
1 Block ( K=B )
68.9
27
55.6
47
39.3
81
2 Blocks ( K=2B )
53.3
54
31.2
95
22.3
159
Appendix
Table 6: Impact of generating multiple blocks. Comparison of Pass@1 (%) and throughput (TPS) on HumanEval when decoding one versus two blocks in parallel. For a given block size B , generating two blocks doubles the total parallelism ( K=2B ).
Block Size ( B=K )
Dream-Coder-7B
CoDiLA
2
0.9998
0.9186
4
0.9999
0.9021
8
0.9994
0.8344
Appendix
Table 7: Any-order generation behavior. Spearman correlation between the model’s empirical sampling order and a strict left-to-right sequence on MBPP. Lower values indicate stronger non-causal, any-order decoding behavior.
Batch Size
Dream-Coder-7B
CoDiLA
1
74.6
61.4
2
74.4
66.5
4
72.6
70.4
8
71.0
72.8
Appendix
Table 8: Throughput across varying batch sizes. Generation speed (tokens/sec) measured on a single NVIDIA A100-80GB GPU on the HumanEval benchmark using highly parallel decoding ( K=B=8 ).
K=1
K=2
K=4
K=8
K=16
Dream-Instruct-7B
85.1
85.5
63.2
52.6
43.3
CoDiLA
88.6
85.3
68.6
63.1
50.3
Appendix
Table 9: ParallelBench Waiting Line. Comparison of accuracy (%) between Dream-Instruct-7B and CoDiLA acting as a verifier.
Decoding iterations
MGDM (repr.)
CoDiLA ( B=4 )
CoDiLA ( B=8 )
2
94.4
95.3
95.4
4
96.5
96.8
96.9
8
97.8
98.2
98.2
16
99.2
99.3
99.3
20
99.3
99.5
99.4
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy (%) on graph traversal (planning)
Discrete diffusion language models enable parallel token generation, offering a pathway to low-latency decoding. However, selecting tokens independently by marginal confidence limits effective parallelism: tokens that appear reliable in isolation can form incompatible configurations when several positions are updated at once. We introduce a training-free decoding framework that coordinates these parallel updates. At each forward pass, the method assigns a commit score to each masked position and refines these scores using pairwise interactions derived from the model's predictive distributions. A variational relaxation yields a simple fixed-point update that suppresses conflicting simultaneous commitments within a single forward pass. This mechanism allows the decoder to commit more tokens in parallel while maintaining competitive generation quality. The method is lightweight, requires no auxiliary model or retraining, and drops into existing diffusion decoding pipelines without modification. Experiments on reasoning and code-generation benchmarks show consistent improvements in the quality-latency trade-off.
Tamim Zoabi, Ameen Ali, Liran Ringel +1
School of Electrical & Computer Engineering Tel Aviv University, Israel · School of Computer Science and AI Tel Aviv University, Israel · Department of Computer Science Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Diffusion Language Models (DLMs) are often advertised as enabling parallel token generation, yet practical fast DLMs frequently converge to left-to-right, autoregressive (AR)-like decoding dynamics. In contrast, genuinely non-AR generation is promising because it removes AR's sequential bottleneck, better exploiting parallel hardware to reduce synchronization/communication overhead and improve latency scaling with output length. We argue that a primary driver of AR-like decoding is a mismatch between DLM objectives and the highly sequential structure of widely used training data, including standard pretraining corpora and long chain-of-thought (CoT) supervision. Motivated by this diagnosis, we propose NAP (Non-Autoregressive Parallel DLMs), a proof-of-concept, data-centric approach that better aligns supervision with non-AR parallel decoding. NAP curates examples as multiple independent reasoning trajectories and couples them with a parallel-forced decoding strategy that encourages multi-token parallel updates. Across math reasoning benchmarks, NAP yields stronger performance under parallel decoding than DLMs trained on standard long CoT data, with gains growing as parallelism increases. Our results suggest that revisiting data and supervision is a principled direction for mitigating AR-like behavior and moving toward genuinely non-autoregressive parallel generation in DLMs. Our code is available at https://github.com/pixeli99/NAP.
Pengxiang Li, Dilxat Muhtar, Tianlong Chen +2
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China · ELLIS Institute Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems, Tübingen, Germany +3
Diffusion language models enable flexible arbitrary-order generation, but existing sampling methods are mostly designed for early masked diffusion models (MDMs). In this work, we study sampling for recent block diffusion language models (BDLMs). We show empirically and analytically that these models are naturally more aligned with left-to-right decoding than MDMs. Based on this observation, we propose Parallel Autoregressive Decoding (PARD), a simple training-free sampling method that preserves left-to-right unmasking structure while allowing parallel token commitment. Extensive experiments show that PARD consistently outperforms existing parallel samplers in generation quality, while achieving substantial speedups over pure AR decoding with only a small quality gap.
Kai Syun Hou, James Kwok
Department of Computer Science and Engineering The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology