The slow, sequential nature of autoregressive (AR) language models has driven the adoption of parallel decoding methods. However, these non-AR models often sacrifice generation quality as they struggle to model the complex joint distribution of token sequences. To narrow this performance gap, we introduce Gumbel Distillation, a novel distillation technique that enables parallel decoders to learn this distribution effectively. Our method leverages the Gumbel-Max trick to create a deterministic mapping from a latent Gumbel noise space to the output tokens of a high-performing AR teacher. As a model-agnostic technique, Gumbel Distillation seamlessly integrates with diverse parallel decoding architectures, including MDLM and BD3-LM. Experiments on LM1B and OpenWebText show that Gumbel Distillation substantially improves the generation quality of parallel language models, achieving a 30.0% improvement in MAUVE score and 10.5% in generative perplexity over MDLM trained on OpenWebText dataset. Code available at https://github.com/hxixixh/gumbel-distill.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A conceptual overview of Gumbel Distillation. The distillation process consists of two steps: (1) Data Generation: An autoregressive teacher model’s sampling process is combined with Gumbel noise to deterministically generate pairs of token sequences and their corresponding Gumbel noise. In practice, one could alternatively extract {ξ} in parallel based on an offline training corpus (Section 4.1 ); (2) Student Training: A parallel student model is trained to predict a target subset of tokens, conditioned on both the context and the Gumbel noise from the teacher.
Figure 2: A toy maze problem illustrating how Gumbel Distillation helps a student model learn a structured task. The goal is to generate a valid path from a start ( <bos> ) to a target ( <eos> ) using a simple vocabulary ( up , down , left , right ). The figure visualizes 100 generated paths from each model, slightly jittered for visualization. The baseline MDLM frequently fails, producing incoherent paths, indicating its difficulty in modeling the joint distribution of the sequence. In contrast, our Gumbel-conditioned model successfully finds valid paths, closely matching the performance of the AR teacher but at a fraction of the generation cost (NFE = 3 steps vs. 10 steps).
LM1B
OpenWebText
MAUVE ↑
GenPPL ↓
MAUVE ↑
GenPPL ↓
AR (student-size)
0.465
36.42
0.691
14.10
MDLM
0.179
78.74
0.217
38.34
MDLM + Gumbel Distillation
0.264
67.64
0.282
34.33
BD3-LM ( L′=4 )
0.193
56.98
0.251
26.40
BD3-LM ( L′=4 ) + Gumbel Distillation
0.291
46.06
0.304
24.37
Table 1: Main results for unconditional text generation. AR denotes an autoregressive model with the same parameter as the student backbones (used only as a quality reference); the distillation teacher is GPT-2-Large. Models are trained for 1M steps on LM1B (length 128) and OpenWebText (length 1024). Best non-AR scores are in bold.
Model
Clarity
Grammaticality
Factuality
Style
Creativity
MDLM
2.44
2.22
2.70
2.32
2.22
MDLM + Gumbel Distillation
2.86
(+17.2%)
2.57
(+15.8%)
3.31
(+22.6%)
2.57
(+10.8%)
2.36
(+6.3%)
BD3-LM
2.89
2.95
3.21
3.34
2.75
BD3-LM + Gumbel Distillation
3.41
(+18.0%)
3.22
(+9.2%)
3.78
(+17.7%)
3.35
(+0.2%)
2.68
(-2.5%)
Table 2: Qualitative evaluation using Gemini-2.5-pro as an LLM judge on OpenWebText. Scores are on a 1-10 scale (higher is better). Gumbel Distillation shows clear improvements across most dimensions, with the most significant and consistent gains observed in Clarity and Factuality .
Figure 3: Generative Perplexity and MAUVE Score vs. Number of Function Evaluations (NFE) of MDLM on LM1B and OpenWebText . Our method ( Gumbel Distillation ) consistently outperforms the baselines, achieving lower perplexity for a given number of evaluations.
Figure 4: Zero-shot performance on common-sense reasoning and question answering benchmarks. Our Gumbel Distillation consistently improves accuracy over the baseline models across a suite of eight tasks. All scores are percentages (%).
Baseline
+ Gumbel Distillation
Δrel%
GPT-2-Small backbone (OpenWebText)
Head 0 (NTP)
1.000
1.000
-
Head 1
0.445
0.465
(+4.5%)
Head 2
0.310
0.344
(+11.0%)
Head 3
0.264
0.322
(+22.0%)
Accepted Length
1.609
1.691
(+5.1%)
Table 3: Per-position acceptance rates of Medusa MTP heads. We report conditional acceptance rates under typical acceptance. Δrel% denotes relative improvement over the baseline. Top: frozen GPT-2-Small trained on OpenWebText (self-distillation). Bottom: scaling to frozen Vicuna-7B trained on 60k ShareGPT samples (Medusa recipe; Head 0 uses the frozen LM head).
Method
MAUVE ↑
GenPPL ↓
MDLM
0.179
78.74
+ Token-level KD
0.166
95.88
+ Sequence-level KD
0.169
99.48
+ APD
0.203
57.61
+ Gumbel Distillation
0.264
67.64
+ Gumbel Distillation + APD
0.255
49.28
Table 4: Comparison to outcome-based distillation baselines and APD on MDLM (LM1B). Token-level and sequence-level KD are outcome-based AR to NAR distillation baselines; APD is applied only at inference time. Best MAUVE and best GenPPL are in bold.
Parallel Gumbel Extraction
Sequential Gumbel Extraction
Gumbel Noise
Gaussian Noise
Uniform Noise
MAUVE Score( ↑ )
Gen. PPL ( ↓ )
✓
✓
0.264
67.64
✓
✓
0.189
86.38
✓
✓
0.242
81.43
✓
✓
0.097
-
Table 5: Consolidated ablation study using MDLM on LM1B. Parallel Gumbel Extraction is superior to the sequential method. The specific Gumbel distribution is critical, as replacing it with Gaussian noise degrades performance, and Uniform noise leads to mode collapse.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model scale
Layers L
Hidden H
Vocab V
Added params VH
Overhead
GPT-2 Small
12
768
50,257
38.6M
33.0%
GPT-2 Large
36
1,280
50,257
64.3M
8.3%
LLaMA-7B
32
4,096
32,000
131.1M
1.9%
LLaMA-13B
40
5,120
32,000
163.8M
1.3%
Qwen-7B
32
4,096
152,000
622.6M
8.9%
Appendix
Table 6: Parameter overhead of the Gumbel projection matrix ( Wξ∈RH×V ). Overhead is VH/TotalParams . Large vocabularies increase overhead, while larger backbones reduce it.
Figure 5: Gumbel Distillation Integrated with MDLM. Left: original MDLM architecture, masked positions are predicted based solely on the unmasked context. Right: Gumbel-conditioned architecture: distillation pairs (ξ,x) are obtained from an AR teacher; then MDLM is modified to take Gumbel as conditional input, learning to predict masked positions with corresponding Gumbel noise.
Figure 6: Gumbel Distillation integrated with Medusa. The base backbone model is frozen when training the MTP heads. We first obtain distillation pairs (ξ,x) from the AR backbone as teacher, then each MTP head is modified to take Gumbel as conditional input.
Figure 7: Prompt used for LLM-based evaluation using Gemini-2.5-pro.
NFE
=1
=2
=4
=8
=16
MDLM
53.0
64.0
69.0
81.0
94.0
MDLM + Gumbel Distillation
82.0
86.0
97.0
99.0
98.0
Appendix
Table 7: Success rates vs. NFEs for MDLM and MDLM + Gumbel Distillation on the maze toy.
PTB
Wikitext
LM1B
Lambada
AG News
Pubmed
Arxiv
MDLM
92.54
34.52
66.10
48.63
65.32
43.67
37.47
MDLM + Gumbel Distillation
35.12
15.57
26.01
15.56
20.03
20.81
16.85
Block Diffusion
96.27
30.82
61.14
49.51
63.09
42.59
39.39
Block Diffusion + Gumbel Distillation
37.54
13.86
22.69
15.78
18.19
19.78
17.02
Appendix
Table 8: Validation perplexities ( ↓ ) of models trained on OWT.
Model
GenPPL ↓
MDLM
55.1
MDLM + Gumbel Distillation
47.8
Appendix
Table 9: Infilling on LM1B. Gumbel conditioning improves GenPPL on a non-AR infilling task, suggesting it does not overfit to AR-style sampling.
Method
MAUVE ↑
GenPPL ↓
MDLM (Small)
0.179
78.74
MDLM (Small) + Gumbel Distillation
0.264
67.64
MDLM (Medium, partial)
0.186
74.22
MDLM (Medium, partial) + Gumbel Distillation
0.253
61.34
Appendix
Table 10: Gumbel Distillation improves both MAUVE and GenPPL for different model scales.
Figure 8: Sample from MDLM of length 1024 and T = 1024 steps. The generative perplexity of the sample under GPT-2-Large is 62.36 and its entropy is 5.56.
Figure 9: Sample from MDLM + Gumbel Distillation of length 1024 and T = 1024 steps. The generative perplexity of the sample under GPT-2-Large is 35.19 and its entropy is 5.32.
Figure 10: Sample from BD3-LM of length 1024 and T = 1024 steps. The generative perplexity of the sample under GPT-2-Large is 37.7 and its entropy is 5.21.
Figure 11: Sample from BD3-LM + Gumbel Distillation of length 1024 and T = 1024 steps. The generative perplexity of the sample under GPT-2-Large is 27.2 and its entropy is 5.19.
Figure 12: Sample from AR of length 1024 and T = 1024 steps. The generative perplexity of the sample under GPT-2-Large is 15.7 and its entropy is 5.29.
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
Autoregressive language models emit one token per forward pass. This causes high inference latency, in particular as models are scaled up for quality. In this paper, we introduce Parallel Language Models (PLMs), which generate mutually consistent tokens in one forward pass by routing dependencies through latent auxiliary variables. PLMs are trained using a variational bound that reduces to an autoregressive loss plus a parallel decoding loss. Empirically, PLMs are on a faster and better Pareto frontier than autoregressive and discrete diffusion baselines. Pretrained PLMs achieve near-autoregressive pretraining loss on model scales of 80M to 3B parameters, and speedup follows a power law in model size. When post-trained, our 1.3B model matches or exceeds an identically trained autoregressive model on math, coding, and instruction-following benchmarks, speeding up inference 2.3-5.7×. Together, we show that parallel generation can be trained from a single training objective at autoregressive quality. We will make our code available at https://github.com/mandt-lab/plm.
Felix Draxler, Robin C. Geyer, Daniel Geyfman +13
University of California, Irvine, CA, USA · Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland · Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Charité Berlin, Germany +1
We introduce DiffusionGemma, an experimental open-weight language model that uses discrete diffusion to generate text at exceptionally high speed. Rather than decoding one token at a time, DiffusionGemma iteratively refines blocks of 256 tokens in parallel, avoiding the sequential decoding bottleneck of conventional autoregressive (AR) large language models. Instead of training from scratch, we obtain DiffusionGemma by fine-tuning the mixture-of-experts Gemma 4 model with 3.8B activated and 25.2B total parameters. Our compute-efficient two-stage training pipeline uses fewer than 10% of the starting AR model's total training token budget. The first stage uses supervised fine-tuning to teach bidirectional denoising, while the second stage combines reinforcement learning with sampler distillation to jointly improve generation quality and inference efficiency. DiffusionGemma establishes a new Pareto frontier for the trade-off between generation speed and model capability. Averaged across our full evaluation suite, it generates around 20 tokens per forward pass and achieves roughly 1,500 output tokens per second on a single NVIDIA H100 GPU, which is substantially faster than AR models even with state-of-the-art speculative decoding. DiffusionGemma also retains the starting model's support for thinking mode, multimodal inputs, and long contexts. Despite diffusion fine-tuning, it remains capable of AR generation with only minor performance degradation, suggesting a path toward hybrid diffusion-AR decoding.
DiffusionGemma Team, Adrien Ali Taïga, James Assiene +41