Correcting flawed reasoning traces remains a significant challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), whose autoregressive generation can propagate early mistakes into subsequent reasoning. We introduce DCGC, a Masked Diffusion Model (MDM) framework for global correction that uses an imperfect solution draft from an upstream solver as auxiliary context. DCGC combines task-specific Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with a novel inference-time mechanism called Dynamic Dual-CFG. This mechanism separates problem-only and joint problem-draft branches and scales the draft-conditioned residual using a relative confidence gap. Across math, code, and knowledge reasoning benchmarks, DCGC outperforms standard sampling and simpler CFG variants, with additional results suggesting transfer to different diffusion backbones. In test-time setting where ground-truth failure labels are unavailable, DCGC improves full test set accuracy by correcting low-consensus upstream outputs, highlighting its utility as a verifier-free global correction module for difficult reasoning instances.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of DCGC. DCGC operates as an iterative denoising process (left) using three parallel conditioning streams at each step: unconditional, problem-conditioned ( Q ), and joint-conditioned ( Q,W ). The core Dynamic Dual-CFG mechanism (right) dynamically modulates guidance based on token-level confidence. By applying ReLU-based scaling ( S2 ), DCGC modulates the influence, activating the residual amplification only when the joint context provides a confidence gain( Cjoint>Cprob ), ensuring robust selective reuse.
Method
Model
Math
Code
Knowledge & Reasoning
Avg.
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HumanEval
MMLU-STEM
MMLU-Pro
LLM Baselines
Self-Refine
LLaMA
17.1
0.4
11.1
11.6
11.3
5.8
10.1
Self-Refine
LLaMASFT
26.4
11.0
8.3
10.1
26.3
15.9
16.3
Self-Refine
Mistral
5.6
0.7
1.4
8.7
4.2
3.0
3.9
MDM variants
Table 1: Overall Performance. Performance comparison across reasoning benchmarks. DCGC combines mixed-format SFT with Dynamic Dual-CFG and achieves the highest average accuracy, with the best score on five of the six benchmarks. Bold and underlined indicate the best and second-best scores, respectively.
Method
Guidance Branch
Scaling
Scores
Avg.
Q
(Q, W)
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HEval
STEM
Pro
Standard Sampling
-
-
-
32.4
17.4
5.1
8.7
30.9
19.2
18.9
Single-Condition
Single-CFG ( Problem )
✓
-
Constant
43.9
17.4
6.9
10.1
34.9
20.8
22.4
Single-CFG ( Joint )
-
✓
Constant
36.6
15.6
5.6
8.7
32.9
21.4
20.1
Dual-Condition
Table 2: Impact of guidance scaling strategies. DCGC (Relative) utilizes a dynamic ReLU-based scaling to selectively leverage dual conditions, consistently outperforming static and independent variants across all benchmarks. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best scores, respectively.
Task
Draft Condition
Acc. ↑
FRR ↓
GSM8K
Original
44.9
27.3
Shuffled
38.0
90.3
Domain-shifted
40.7
98.6
MATH
Original
22.3
66.0
Shuffled
10.3
96.8
Domain-shifted
11.0
96.8
Table 3: Draft relevance perturbation. We keep the problem fixed and perturb only the draft condition. Original uses the draft generated for the same problem, Shuffled uses an unrelated draft from the same task, and Domain-shifted uses a draft from a different task. FRR (Full Regeneration Rate) denotes the fraction of samples where the generated output has low token overlap with the draft, retaining fewer original draft tokens.
Method
Full Set
Correction Set
Acc.
Δ
Acc.
Δ
MATH (Correction Ratio ∼ 64%, Maj ≥ 3@5 21.00)
Llama-3-8B (Maj@5)
41.19
-
20.4
-
+ Self-Refine
41.20
(+0.01)
20.4
(+0.0)
+ LLaDA (Standard)
40.40
(-0.79)
19.1
(-1.3)
+ LLaDASFT (Standard)
42.60
(+1.41)
22.6
(+2.2)
Table 4: Gold-agnostic selective correction on full test sets. Only low-consensus examples are selected for correction. Headers indicate the correction ratio and high-consensus (Maj ≥ 3@5) accuracy. Parentheses denote Δ relative to the no-correction Maj@5 baseline.
Method
Easy
Hard
GSM8K (Easy: 45, Hard: 73)
DCGC
53.33
31.51
LLaDA Standard
42.22
9.59
LLaDA SFT Standard
44.44
15.07
LLaDA SFT cond Q
40.00
26.03
LLaMA-8B-Instruct
46.67
17.81
Table 5: Post-hoc breakdown of accuracy on the low-consensus correction subset. Easy and hard denote instances for which the initial upstream solution is correct and incorrect, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
LLM
MDM Baselines (8B)
Ours
Self-refine
Self-refine
Standard
Dual-CFG
Standard
DCGC
Source(7B/32B)
LLaMA-8B
LLaDA-
LLaDA
SFT LLaDA
SFT LLaDA
Source: Mistral-7B-v1
GSM8K
2.7
29.5
35.3
30.4
6.7
42.0
MATH
2.1
1.7
11.0
16.4
19.5
20.9
MBPP
25.9
34.8
0.0
11.9
42.2
43.8
Appendix
Table 6: Generalizability across different source models. Comparison of refinement performance on hard sets constructed by Mistral-7B-v1 and Qwen-2.5-32B. SR denotes Self-Refine.
Function
Math
Code
Know.
Avg.
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HEval
STEM
Tanh
44.9
19.1
10.7
10.1
35.4
24.0
Sigmoid
38.0
19.9
11.6
8.7
34.7
22.6
Gated Tanh
42.1
19.2
10.7
13.0
34.7
23.9
Gated Sigmoid
39.8
17.7
11.1
14.5
33.3
23.3
ReLU (DCGC)
44.9
22.3
10.7
13.1
35.7
25.3
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation on Scaling Functions. Comparison of different activation functions for the refinement scaling factor ( S2 ). ReLU (Ours) achieves the highest average accuracy, effectively filtering out noise through its hard-gating mechanism, whereas Tanh and Sigmoid suffer from noise leakage on complex reasoning tasks.
SFT
Guidance
Scaling
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
MMLU-STEM
Avg.
–
Standard Sampling
–
3.2
7.1
1.9
6.5
4.7
–
Dynamic Dual-CFG
ReLU
19.4
13.8
9.7
17.2
15.0
✓
Standard Sampling
–
27.8
15.3
7.4
19.1
17.4
✓
DCGC (Relative)
ReLU
42.6
18.1
13.4
31.4
26.4
Appendix
Table 8: Additional results on the DREAM backbone. We evaluate DCGC on DREAM, another masked diffusion backbone, using the same solver-failure hard-set protocol as in Table 1 . The results show that the same trend observed with LLaDA also holds for DREAM: dual-capability SFT improves the base model, and DCGC further improves over the matched SFT backbone with standard sampling. These results are intended as supporting evidence for backbone transfer, while the primary controlled comparison remains Table 1 .
Method
Tool-free
Verifier-free
GSM8K
MATH
MMLU-STEM
Self-Refine
✓
✓
26.4
11.0
26.3
RCI ( Kim et al., 2023 )
✓
✓
19.4
0.7
29.9
ReVISE ( Lee et al., 2025a )
✓
✓
4.2
0.0
4.8
DCGC
✓
✓
44.9
22.3
35.7
Appendix
Table 9: Comparison with tool-free, verifier-free revise methods under our hard-set protocol.
Branch relation
Mean gap
Draft reuse
Disagreement
0.214
0.321
Agreement
0.026
0.192
Appendix
Table 10: Token-level relationship between branch disagreement, confidence gap, and draft reuse on MATH. Disagreement indicates positions at which the problem-only and joint branches predict different argmax tokens. Draft reuse is measured by 8-gram overlap at gate-open positions.
Draft
ρ
95% CI
ρ (length-controlled)
Original
+0.195
[+0.070,+0.314]
+0.247
Shuffled
+0.078
[−0.051,+0.204]
+0.077
Appendix
Table 11: Example-level correlation between the mean confidence gap and draft reuse on MATH. The shuffled condition pairs each problem with a draft from an unrelated example. The final column reports the partial Spearman correlation after controlling for generation length.
Q: Claire makes a 3 egg omelet every morning for breakfast. How many dozens of eggs will she eat in 4 weeks?
W: …4 weeks * 7 days/week = 28 days…3 omelets/day * 28 days = 84 …84 omelets * 3 eggs/omelet = 252 eggs… The answer is: 21
Appendix
Table 12: Step-by-step visualization of the DCGC generation process on a GSM8K example. The table illustrates how dynamic dual-CFG adapts at the token level. DCGC effectively filters out incorrect signals from the wrong solution (e.g., t=7 ) while selectively injecting constructive hints (e.g., t=20,33 ) only when the refinement context provides higher confidence ( C2>C1 ). Red and blue text indicate incorrect and corrected tokens, respectively.
Figure 2: Qualitative Example on GSM8K. The phrase "total amount" misleads the Draft into incorrectly summing past states ( 4000+14000 ). Self-Refine exacerbates this by summing all days. Standard Sampling copies the Draft’s flawed logic verbatim (Step 4) but corrects the arithmetic error ( 16000→18000 ). In contrast, DCGC correctly interprets the final state volume, filtering out the logical noise.
Figure 3: Qualitative Example on MATH. The Draft finds specific instances ( n=6,8,12 ) but incorrectly concludes these are the only solutions (Step 7). Self-Refine repeats this limited reasoning verbatim. Standard Sampling also exhibits tunnel vision. In contrast, DCGC generalizes from the specific examples to identify the underlying rule ( n is a divisor of 24), successfully finding all 7 solutions.
Large language models increasingly tackle tasks that require multi-step reasoning, where errors in intermediate claims can affect the final answer. Self-consistency (SC) improves reasoning by voting over sampled final answers, but its vote leaves intermediate disagreements unresolved. To address this problem, we introduce DDRG (Disagreement-Driven Verification Guided by Reasoning Graphs), a framework for selective correction from a frozen bank of reasoning traces. Our insight is that graph alignment can expose claim-level disagreements and provide correction evidence without expanding the sampled trace bank. DDRG builds source-grounded claim graphs and sends localized conflicts to an answer-blind verifier. A verifier-supported refutation that reaches the majority answer's supporting path triggers one focused repair; otherwise, DDRG returns the exact SC vote. Experimental results across five benchmarks show that native zero-shot DDRG improves macro-average accuracy over direct answering by 8.65 and 15.83 percentage points for Qwen2.5-7B and Llama3.1-8B. It also exceeds CoT, the evaluated GoT and GoV question-answering adaptations, and SC on this macro metric. DDRG links local verification to selective correction without enlarging the initial candidate bank.
Haotian Liu, Yingjian Chen, Xiaohang Xu +4
School of Informatics, Xiamen University · The University of Tokyo · National Institute of Informatics (NII)
Large language models produce fluent but often incorrect multi-step reasoning, and naive correction methods risk degrading already-correct answers. We introduce Denoising Iterative Self-Correction (DISC), a test-time procedure that treats verification question outputs as noisy measurements of where a solution may be corrupted. Using these signals, DISC progressively reduces errors across multiple verify-judge-correct passes, analogous to traditional iterative denoising. A binary judgment gate controls correction precision by blocking rewrites that would damage already-correct answers while the verifier and corrector together repair errors. We evaluate this trade-off using two paired diagnostics: an improvement-to-degradation ratio (precision) and a repair rate (recall). Across three benchmarks (BIG-Bench Mistake, HotpotQA, GPQA Diamond) and four models, DISC dominates Chain-of-Verification and Self-Refine on the precision-recall trade-off, reaching 81.6% accuracy with 13x more improvements per degradation than Chain-of-Verification and 5x more than Self-Refine on BIG-Bench Mistake (Sonnet~4.5). On GPQA Diamond, we identify a capability floor below which judges acknowledge contradictions in evidence but cannot translate that recognition into a correction. We further show that cross-model role allocation -- assigning verification and judgment to a model different from the generator -- mitigates self-confirmation bias.
Masked diffusion language models (MDLMs) generate text by iteratively unmasking tokens from a fully masked sequence. Their standard confidence-based unmasking strategy systematically defers high-entropy logical connective tokens, degrading reasoning performance. We introduce LogicDiff, an inference-time method that replaces confidence-based unmasking with logic-role-guided unmasking. A lightweight classification head (4.2M parameters, 0.05% of the base model) predicts the logical role of each masked position (premise, connective, derived step, conclusion, or filler) from the base model's hidden states with 98.4% accuracy, and a dependency-ordered scheduler unmasks tokens in logical order. In zero-shot settings, LogicDiff improves LLaDA-8B-Instruct accuracy from 22.0% to 60.7% on GSM8K (+38.7 percentage points) and from 23.6% to 29.2% on MATH-500 (+5.6 pp), with less than 6% speed overhead. However, with 8-shot chain-of-thought prompting, the baseline reaches approximately 70% and LogicDiff provides no additional improvement. Analysis reveals that few-shot prompting implicitly resolves the same ordering problem that LogicDiff explicitly addresses, and that fixed role-based ordering can cause premature commitment to numerical values before sufficient context is available. Our results characterize the Flexibility Trap as primarily a zero-shot phenomenon and identify context-adaptive ordering as a key direction for future work.
Shaik Aman
Independent Researcher, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India