Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) theoretically permit token decoding in arbitrary order, a flexibility that could enable richer exploration of reasoning paths than autoregressive (AR) LLMs. In practice, however, random-order decoding often hurts generation quality. To mitigate this, low-confidence remasking improves single-sample quality (e.g., Pass@1) by prioritizing confident tokens, but it also suppresses exploration and limits multi-sample gains (e.g., Pass@k), creating a fundamental quality--exploration dilemma. In this paper, we provide a unified explanation of this dilemma. We show that low-confidence remasking improves a myopic proxy for quality while provably constraining the entropy of the induced sequence distribution. To overcome this limitation, we characterize the optimal distribution that explicitly balances quality and exploration, and develop a simple Independent Metropolis--Hastings sampler that approximately targets this distribution during decoding. Experiments across a range of reasoning benchmarks including MATH500, AIME24/25, HumanEval, and MBPP show that our approach yields better exploration-quality tradeoff than both random and low-confidence remasking.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The quality–exploration dilemma in dLLM decoding. Confidence remasking achieves high sample quality (Pass@ 1 ) but plateaus Pass@ k quickly due to limited exploration. Conversely, random remasking promotes exploration but degrades individual sample quality. Our global tempering reconciles this trade-off, establishing a new Pareto frontier with superior Pass@ 1 and Pass@ 16 performance.
Heuristic
Commit criterion
Mode
δ -gating
Confidence ( Nie et al., 2025 ; Ye et al., 2025 )
maxvpi(v)≥1−δ
Sample-then-Filter
δ (directly)
Entropy ( Ben-Hamu et al., 2025 ; Fu et al., 2025 )
H(pi)≤ε
Rank-then-Sample
δ=δV(ε)
Margin ( Kim et al., 2025a ; Hong et al., 2025b )
pi(v1)−pi(v2)≥γ
Rank-then-Sample
δ=∣V∣(∣V∣−1)(1−γ)
Table 1: Taxonomy of uncertainty heuristics for uncertainty-based remasking. We categorize heuristics by their distributional scoring functions ( pi(⋅):=p(⋅∣st,i) ) and operational paradigms ( Sample-then-Filter vs. Rank-then-Sample ). The δ -gating column establishes the equivalent confidence lower bound maxvpi(v)≥1−δ for each criterion. See Appendix C for detailed definitions and formal derivations of these bounds.
Math reasoning
Code generation
Method
Metric
MATH500
AIME’24
AIME’25
HumanEval
HumanEval+
MBPP
MBPP+
WeDLM-8B
Entropy †
Pass@1
0.528
0.093
0.071
0.732
0.684
0.784
0.677
Pass@k
0.875
0.310
0.291
0.950
0.911
0.916
0.739
Confidence
Pass@1
0.528
0.079
0.074
0.725
0.678
0.707
0.598
Pass@k
0.851
0.323
0.292
0.905
0.857
0.834
0.717
Table 2: Pass@ 1 and Pass@ k across benchmarks and models. Bold indicates the best result for a given metric. LLaDA-8B results on AIME24/25 are omitted as they are close to 0.
Figure 2: Pass@ k scaling curves. (Left) Performance on MATH500, HumanEval, and MBPP for WeDLM-8B (top) and LLaDA-8B (bottom). (Right) WeDLM-8B on AIME’24/25.
Figure 3: Left: Quality-diversity trade-off on MATH500 (LLaDA) by sweeping temperature parameters. IMH strictly dominates local baselines. Middle: Pass@ 32 on AIME 2024 stratified by difficulty ( Sun et al., 2025 ) (WeDLM-8B). IMH yields the largest gains on Hard problems. Right: Trajectory similarity matrix on AIME 2024. Local baselines collapse into similar paths, whereas IMH explores distinctly different reasoning strategies.
T
Pass@1
Pass@8
Acc.(%)
1
9.5
23.1
99.3
3
10.0
23.3
99.1
7
11.4
24.0
98.3
15
11.0
23.4
97.5
31
11.0
24.5
97.2
Baseline
9.4
21.4
—
Table 3: MCMC dynamics on AIME 2024 (WeDLM-8B). Baseline denotes entropy remasking without IMH.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Maximum Generation Length
MATH500
128
AIME 2024
512
AIME 2025
512
HumanEval
256
MBPP
256
Appendix
Table 4: Maximum generation lengths for LLaDA across different benchmarks.
Benchmark
Size ( M )
WeDLM ( n=128,k=32 )
LLaDA ( n=32,k=16 )
MBPP
974
±1.4%
±2.0%
MATH500
500
±1.9%
±2.9%
HumanEval
164
±3.4%
±5.0%
AIME 2024 / 2025
30
±7.9%
-
Appendix
Table 5: Worst-case 95% margin of error for Pass@ k estimation. The theoretical maximum noise introduced by the finite-sample estimator for each benchmark and model setting.
Diffusion language model decoding generates text through iterative parallel refinement, balancing fewer denoising steps with accuracy, coherence, and control.
Much work has been done on designing fast and accurate sampling for diffusion language models (dLLMs). However, these efforts have largely focused on the tradeoff between speed and quality of individual samples; how to additionally ensure diversity across samples remains less well understood. In this work, we show that diversity can be increased by using softened, tempered versions of familiar confidence-based remasking heuristics, retaining their computational benefits and offering simple implementations. We motivate this approach by introducing an idealized formal model of fork tokens and studying the impact of remasking on the expected entropy at the forks. Empirically, the proposed tempered heuristics close the exploration gap (pass@k) between existing confidence-based and autoregressive sampling, hence outperforming both when controlling for cost (pass@NFE). We further study how the increase in diversity translates to downstream post-training and test-time compute scaling. Overall, our findings demonstrate that simple, efficient, and diverse sampling from dLLMs is possible.
Theo X. Olausson, Metod Jazbec, Xi Wang +4
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · UvA-Bosch Delta Lab, University of Amsterdam · Johns Hopkins University +1
Masked diffusion language models (dLLMs) can commit tokens in any order -- a freedom marketed as their core advantage over autoregressive decoding. We show that on reasoning tasks this freedom is instead the axis of failure. Logging every commitment during decoding of LLaDA-8B on GSM8K, we find that unconstrained (pure) decoding commits the final answer at 15-24% of the trajectory while half the reasoning region is still masked, and collapses to answer-only outputs on up to 90% of problems as the canvas grows. The cause is not the model's termination beliefs -- EOS "pressure" is nearly identical across decoders -- but reachability: whether the sampler may act on those beliefs at distant positions. A 2x2 prompt-decoder design shows that chain-of-thought helps only under ordered commitment (interaction +34.8 percentage points, 95% CI [26.8, 42.8]; without reasoning text the decoders are indistinguishable), an interaction we decompose into a collapse channel and an order channel and replicate on Dream-7B and MATH-500. A single-knob intervention -- frontier-gated commitment -- causally recovers the full gap (0.528 to 0.852) while preserving up to 4x parallel decoding, along a measured frontier whose optimal window flips from w=1 at full refinement to unconstrained at 8 tokens/step. Our results reframe existing window-style samplers, previously motivated by efficiency, as the minimal fix for a reasoning pathology they were never designed to address.
Jewon Yeom, Jaewon Sok, Seonghyeon Park +3
Graduate School of Data Science, Seoul National University · Department of Rural Systems Engineering, Seoul National University · Department of Aerospace Engineering, Seoul National University
Masked diffusion language models (dLLMs) have shown strong potential for faster inference through parallel token generation when combined with confidence-based samplers. However, recent work has shown that such methods can defer unmasking high-entropy fork positions at which multiple plausible continuations exist. This results in reduced generation diversity, as shown by worse pass@k scaling, and limits gains obtainable from RL post-training. To avoid this flexibility trap, prior work advocated for autoregressive (AR) sampling. Here, we show that discarding confidence-based sampling is unnecessary and, once inference cost is taken into account, wasteful. We first propose Fork-dLLM, a simple hybrid sampler that uses AR-style ordering only at uncertain fallback steps while retaining parallel generation otherwise. We then extend the same principle to post-training with ForkGRPO, which uses Fork-dLLM rollouts and applies the GRPO objective only at fallback steps, preserving exact policy-likelihood ratios while substantially reducing rollout and optimization cost. In our experiments, Fork-dLLM matches the strong pass@k scaling of AR sampling while being 2-3x more efficient, and ForkGRPO achieves downstream performance comparable to or better than AR-based GRPO baselines at a substantially lower training cost.
Stipe Frković, Metod Jazbec, Christian A. Naesseth
University of Amsterdam · UvA-Bosch Delta Lab, University of Amsterdam