Gradient-based reward guidance provides a flexible way to use downstream reward models to control masked diffusion language models at inference time. However, its computational cost remains high as each decoding iteration incurs expensive diffusion model forward passes and reward model backpropagation steps. To address this, we introduce FastGuide, an adaptive hybrid of parallel and autoregressive decoding to accelerate reward guidance for diffusion language models. In analogy to parallel decoding, FastGuide amortizes the cost of reward model backpropagation by computing guidance once per decoding step and reusing it to generate multiple tokens. Within each decoding step, FastGuide makes diffusion forward passes autoregressive by unmasking tokens one at a time while efficiently recomputing token distributions after each unmasking by utilizing KV caching techniques and sparse recomputation of attention. Lastly, to adapt hybrid decoding to the model's confidence, FastGuide defers any token that the model is unconfident about under its recomputed distribution. Experiments on three reward benchmarks demonstrate that FastGuide is up to 4.4× faster than sequential reward-guided decoding while retaining similar generation quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Left: Reward guidance ( Tejaswi et al., 2026 ) can increase incompatibilities across token values proposed during parallel decoding. Above, CPA should expand to Certified Public Accountant . While unguided generation with parallel decoding method Fast-dLLM ( Wu et al., 2025 ) produces the correct token prefix for CPA , Fast-dLLM with guidance fails. Right: Our method is much faster than sequential guided generation while retaining similar generation quality.
Figure 2: Overview of FastGuide. Left: Illustration of one hybrid decoding step of FastGuide with k=4 . FastGuide utilizes guidance caching and autoregressive sparse dLLM recomputation. After recomputation, tokens are deferred if token confidence drops below a threshold. Right: Sparse dLLM recomputation of token 7 after committing token 6, with window radius w=1 . Attention and FFN outputs are recomputed only at the selected positions, whose queries attend to the full sequence using updated K/V inside the windows and cached K/V elsewhere.
Figure 3: Disentangling Reuse of dLLM Logits and Guidance.
Figure 4: Left: (a) Replacing fresh guidance with a cached guidance produces small changes in high-confidence token distributions. Right: (b) Percentage of prompts exhibiting certain number of conflicts between proposed tokens (as measured by PMI being less than −1 ).
Dream-7B
LLaDA-8B
Method
Top@1
Seq Gap
LMUnit
s/gen
Top@1
Seq Gap
LMUnit
s/gen
JudgeBench
Conf (BoN)
+1.52±.16
–
3.97±.03
10.8±4.7
+2.65±.21
–
4.05±.03
11.8±5.1
Seq
Conf
+2.53±.16
–
4.05±.03
37.3±15.5
+3.23±.20
–
4.08±.03
45.3±18.5
Parallel
Conf (BoN)
−3.14±.20
−4.66
3.01±.05
02.7±1.1
−2.23±.22
−4.88
3.05±.05
03.0±1.3
Conf
+0.38±.20
−2.15
3.64±.04
09.7±3.8
+1.54±.22
−1.69
3.78±.04
11.8±5.1
Table 1: Quantitative results for reward-guided generation on JudgeBench, RM-Bench, and Reward-Bench-2. All parallel decoding methods use cached EntRGi reward guidance, unless (BoN) is mentioned, denoting Best-of-N sampling. Subscripts denote the standard error over prompts.
Figure 6
Figure 7: Sequential gap by category (closer to 0 is better). FastGuide has the smallest gap to sequential decoding, especially in reasoning categories such as coding where baselines degrade.
Figure 8: Qualitative generations on Math RM-Bench prompt. Red highlighted tokens denote incorrect tokens. This reinforces that guidance can worsen performance of parallel decoders, while FastGuide succeeds.
Figure 9: Analysis of sparse dLLM recomputation vs. exact dLLM recomputation.
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
High-quality regime
High-throughput regime
Confidence
top- 4 per step
top- 8 per step
Fast-dLLM
c=0.8
c=0.6
KLASS
c=0.4 , ϵ=1.5 , h=1
c=0.25 , ϵ=1.0 , h=1
EB-Sampler
γ=4
γ=16
DAPD
schedule scale s=4
schedule scale s=16
FastGuide
k=8 , τ=0.5 , w=2
k=16 , τ=0.5 , w=2
Appendix
Table 2: Operating points of all parallel decoders. The high-quality regime trades throughput for quality, and the high-throughput regime trades quality for throughput.
Figure 10: Prompts given to the LMUnit judge. We also include in the system message the phrase rationale=No , which instructs LMUnit to output only a score for the given unit test without a written rationale as suggested by Saad-Falcon et al. (2025)
Dream-7B
Method
Top@1
Seq Gap
LMUnit
s/gen
JudgeBench
Conf
+2.53±.16
–
4.05±.03
37.3±15.5
Conf (Expectation)
+2.61±.17
–
4.07±.03
37.3±16.4
Seq
Conf (APS)
+2.06±.16
–
4.04±.03
37.0±15.8
Parallel
Conf
+0.38±.20
−2.15
3.64±.04
09.7±3.8
Appendix
Table 3: Generalization across reward-guidance objectives. FastGuide stays close to sequential decoding under the Expectation and APS objectives (in parentheses), while confidence-based parallel decoding degrades under all three.
Table 4: Robustness to the reward model on JudgeBench.
Dream-7B
Method
Top@1
Seq Gap
Avg@4
LMUnit
tok/step
s/gen
JudgeBench
Conf (BoN)
+1.52±.16
–
−1.07±.15
3.97±.03
1.00
10.8±4.7
Seq
Conf
+2.53±.16
–
+0.08±.15
4.05±.03
1.00
37.3±15.5
Parallel
Conf (BoN)
−3.14±.20
−4.66
−6.04±.17
3.01±.05
4.00
02.7±1.1
Conf
+0.38±.20
−2.15
−2.64±.19
3.64±.04
4.00
09.7±3.8
Appendix
Table 5: Full results on Dream-7B with Avg@4 and tokens/step added.
Dream-7B
Method
Top@1
Seq Gap
LMUnit
tok/step
s/gen
JudgeBench
Conf (BoN)
+1.52±.16
–
3.97±.03
1.00
10.8±4.7
Seq
Conf
+2.53±.16
–
4.05±.03
1.00
37.3±15.5
Parallel
Conf
−1.91±.20
−4.45
3.04±.05
8.00
04.8±1.9
Fast-dLLM
−2.13±.23
−4.66
3.04±.06
8.63
04.9±2.5
Appendix
Table 6: Results on Dream-7B with higher candidate token set size of k=16 for FastGuide.
LLaDA-8B
Method
Top@1
Seq Gap
Avg@4
LMUnit
tok/step
s/gen
JudgeBench
Conf (BoN)
+2.65±.21
–
+0.51±.20
4.05±.03
1.00
11.8±5.1
Seq
Conf
+3.23±.20
–
+1.31±.20
4.08±.03
1.00
45.3±18.5
Parallel
Conf (BoN)
−2.23±.22
−4.88
−4.87±.19
3.05±.05
4.00
03.0±1.3
Conf
+1.54±.22
−1.69
−1.17±.21
3.78±.04
4.00
11.8±5.1
Appendix
Table 7: Full results on LLaDA-8B with Avg@4 and tokens/step added.
Figure 11: Sparse dLLM verification benefits more from batching than exact recomputation. Left: inference time per generation; right: speedup of sparse over exact recomputation.
Figure 13: Guided DAPD unmasks an incorrect final answer while most of its derivation is still masked. Decoding trajectories for the prompt of Figure 8 ; rows show the sequence after 25% , 50% , 75% , 100% of each method’s decoding steps, where <M> denotes a masked position.
Figure 14: DAPD unmasks “5.” and “ial” around a single masked position, forcing the malformed “5.emonial”. Decoding trajectories on a Chat prompt from RM-Bench; rows show the sequence after 25% , 50% , 75% , 100% of each method’s decoding steps, where <M> denotes a masked position.
Figure 15: DAPD unmasks scattered fragments of a numbered list and fills the remaining positions incoherently. Decoding trajectories on a Safety prompt from RM-Bench in the high-throughput regime; rows show the sequence after 25% , 50% , 75% , 100% of each method’s decoding steps, where <M> denotes a masked position.
Figure 16: Deferral prevents the same word from being unmasked at three positions. Once “mindful” is unmasked in item 7, its recomputed probability in items 5 and 6 falls below τ and both positions are deferred (left: unmasked and deferred proposals of one step with k=8 ; right: final values of the deferred positions).
Figure 17: Deferral lets low-confidence words be revised once their context is unmasked. The proposals “dissolved”, “the”, “desired”, and “cold” are deferred and later become “boiling”, “for”, “small”, and “it” (left: unmasked and deferred proposals of one step with k=8 ; right: final values of the deferred positions).
Figure 18: Deferral revises a sentence ending that was proposed too early. The low-confidence proposals “then”, “in”, and “vehicles” are deferred and later become “stored”, “for”, and “distribution” (left: unmasked and deferred proposals of one step with k=8 ; right: final values of the deferred positions).
Discrete diffusion language models can generate text efficiently by updating multiple masked positions in parallel, but this parallelism introduces a quality-latency trade-off. Aggressive decoding may commit mutually dependent tokens too early, while conservative decoding requires many denoising steps. Existing methods address this tension by deciding which tokens are safe to reveal using confidence or dependency criteria. However, avoiding unsafe commits does not necessarily make the remaining masked sequence easy to decode, since uncertain tokens may depend on masked tokens, creating a bottleneck for denoising steps. We propose AXON, a training-free module that can be added on top of existing parallel decoding strategies for diffusion language models. Rather than replacing the base decoder, AXON monitors the remaining uncertain masked tokens and intervenes only when their current state suggests that additional context is needed. It then shifts the criterion from which tokens are safest to reveal to which confident reveals would best support later denoising. AXON selects anchors, confident masked tokens that uncertain positions attend to, using attention, uncertainty, and confidence signals. Experiments on reasoning and code-generation benchmarks across multiple diffusion language models show that AXON improves the quality-latency trade-off of existing parallel decoders, often reducing the number of function evaluations while maintaining or improving accuracy.
Giries Abu Ayoub, Mario Barbara, Lluís Pastor-Pérez +4
Department of Computer Science, University of Haifa · Institute for AI, University of Stuttgart · IMPRS-IS
Diffusion language models intrinsically fail to capture correlations between decoded tokens, which leads to a harsh trade-off between sampling quality and throughput. To solve this issue, we propose DiLaDiff, a variant of masked diffusion language models with three components: (1) a continuous latent space with semantic capabilities, learned by an auto-encoder fine-tuned from an existing masked diffusion language model; (2) a latent diffusion model learning the prior over the encoder distribution; (3) a consistency model distilling the learned prior into a few-step latent generative model. We show that, even without distillation, our latent-guided diffusion model outperforms the masked diffusion baseline while significantly accelerating inference. Consistency distillation further lowers the computational overhead of continuous diffusion, such that the latent is generated in negligible time compared to discrete decoding.
Jean-Marie Lemercier, Tomas Geffner, Karsten Kreis +3
Masked diffusion language models enable parallel token decoding, providing a promising alternative to the sequential nature of autoregressive generation. However, their iterative denoising process remains computationally expensive because it repeatedly processes the entire sequence at every step. We observe that across these diffusion steps, most token representations remain stable; only a small subset, which we term salient tokens, contributes meaningfully to the next update. Leveraging this temporal sparsity, we present DyLLM, a training-free inference framework that accelerates decoding by selectively computing only these salient tokens. DyLLM identifies saliency by measuring the cosine similarity of attention contexts between adjacent denoising steps. It recomputes feed-forward and attention operations only for salient tokens while reusing cached activations for the remainder. Across diverse reasoning and code-generation benchmarks, DyLLM achieves up to 9.6x higher throughput while largely preserving the baseline accuracy of representative open-source diffusion LLMs, LLaDA, and Dream.
Younjoo Lee, Seungkyun Dan, Junghoo Lee +2
Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea