Intent-Triggered Anchoring for Multi-Token Format Units in Parallel Decoding of Diffusion Language Models
Authors: Junhyeok Lee, Kyu Sung Choi
Organizations: Interdisciplinary Program in Cancer Biology, Seoul National University College of Medicine · Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital · Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine · Healthcare AI Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital
In parallel decoding, diffusion language models commit several tokens per forward pass, so co-committed tokens cannot see each other, breaking multi-token format units that parsers need. On ECHO, an open-weight one-step chest X-ray (CXR) report generator, 32.7-36.7% of evaluation reports lack a parseable Impression heading and score as empty. We propose intent-triggered anchoring, a training-free decoding rule that completes a format unit once the model commits its first token, inserting only units with a unique, content-free completion; fallbacks write the unit when the model stops or loops without starting it. On three CXR evaluation sets, the rule raises readable rates from 63.3-67.3% to 100.0% with no regressions and a 95th-percentile latency ratio of 0.68-1.28 against official decoding. Broken headings state findings absent from the reference; adding the heading at the end leaves them in 15.5-31.0% of reports, our rule in at most 0.6%. For math answer markers, the rule raises accuracy in the most parallel setting of five diffusion language models by 5.8-20.8 points on GSM8K and 5.1-17.1 on GSM-Symbolic, held out from tuning. With lenient answer extraction, gains are 3.3-12.5 and 2.7-6.3 points; the rule adds 1.4-8.6 points over a stop-only fallback for four of the five models.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The failure and two repairs on one 8-token block; ↩ is a newline token. ✗: no parseable heading; ✂: Findings cut mid-sentence; ✓: readable. Thick border: tokens the decoder writes; dashed: slots re-predicted with the anchor in view.
Figure 2: Anchoring on the fused block key–value (KV) cache, on the last four slots of block n . Gray: blocks already cached; green: block n cached with its anchor. (i), (ii): the two cache invariants.
Readable (%)
p95 (s)
Split
Off.
Full
Reg.
Off.
Full
+Fwd
Development
MIMIC valid (277)
65.7
100.0
0/0
2.71
1.68
0.18
ReX valid (3,613)
63.1
100.0
0/0
0.72
0.69
0.39
Evaluation
MIMIC test (517)
65.2
100.0
0/0
2.31
1.57
0.18
Table 1: Full pipeline against official one-step decoding (Off.); counts are studies. Bold: better of Off. and Full. Reg.: readable/complete regressions; p95: 95th-percentile end-to-end time per study in seconds; +Fwd: mean extra decode forwards per study of the full pipeline. ReXGradient (ReX); CheXpert-Plus (CXP).
MIMIC valid
ReX valid
MIMIC test
ReX test
CXP valid
Fixed
EOS
Full
Fixed
EOS
Full
Fixed
EOS
Full
Fixed
EOS
Full
Fixed
EOS
Full
Structure
Readable (%)
100.0
98.9
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
96.2
100.0
Complete (%)
100.0
94.2
100.0
99.9
95.5
100.0
100.0
88.4
100.0
99.8
95.4
100.0
100.0
90.4
100.0
Duplicate headings
9
10
0
464
16
0
10
16
0
471
20
0
4
3
0
Entities
Table 2: Placement comparison on all five splits. Fixed: fixed-position anchoring at b=100 ; EOS: anchoring at the end-of-sequence (EOS) token; Full: full pipeline; Off.: official one-step decoding. Spurious findings: reports whose broken heading fragment states a positive entity absent from the reference; retention is measured against Off. entities, and supported retention against reference-supported Off. entities. Bold: best per split, except for retention. RaTE+: positive-entity RaTEScore. ReXGradient (ReX); CheXpert-Plus (CXP).
MIMIC-CXR valid (277 studies)
ReXGradient valid (3,613 studies)
Decoder
Chg.
Unr./Inc.
MTR
Sem
R-L
RaTE+
Chg.
Unr./Inc.
MTR
Sem
R-L
RaTE+
Full pipeline
–
0/0
45.31
48.28
55.65
58.34
–
0/0
55.75
57.37
64.46
65.93
− intent completion
104
0/0
45.28
47.41
55.33
57.70
1,877
0/0
55.43
51.33
63.89
63.89
− boundary rewrite
11
11/11
45.31
48.25
55.66
58.44
1
1/1
55.75
57.37
64.46
65.93
− real-word guard
12
0/0
45.33
48.38
55.67
58.27
2
0/0
55.75
57.37
64.46
65.92
− EOS relocation
9
9/9
43.84
46.80
53.92
56.80
82
82/82
54.48
56.50
63.11
64.78
Table 3: Leave-one-out ablation on the two development splits. Rows give the full pipeline and each variant with one component removed. Chg.: reports differing from the full pipeline; Unr./Inc.: unreadable/incomplete reports. Bold: best per score column. METEOR (MTR); Sem: SemScore; R-L: ROUGE-L; RaTE+: positive-entity RaTEScore; EOS: end of sequence.
GSM8K test ( n=1,319 )
GSM-Symbolic main ( n=5,000 )
Parse
Accuracy
Lenient
No-loop
Parse
Accuracy
Lenient
No-loop
Model
κ
Base
Anch.
Base
Stop
Anch.
Base
Anch.
Anch.
Base
Anch.
Base
Stop
Anch.
Base
Anch.
Anch.
SDAR, B=32
8
49.2
93.7
31.9
41.2
47.8
39.0
48.5
40.5
42.2
92.9
23.5
28.9
33.4
28.2
33.8
28.6
SDAR, B=4
4
38.0
91.9
29.3
41.8
50.1
38.1
50.6
39.7
32.5
89.9
23.1
32.0
36.0
30.3
36.6
31.1
Fast-dLLM v2
8
62.0
90.2
29.9
35.4
37.8
34.7
38.1
35.5
58.8
90.6
23.5
28.1
29.5
27.1
29.8
28.3
LLaDA
8
77.6
93.6
50.7
53.1
56.5
54.7
58.8
51.7
73.6
92.4
41.8
43.2
46.9
45.0
48.8
42.3
Table 4: Answer-marker anchoring in the most parallel setting of each model and in dParallel’s native setting. Base and Anch.: percentages without and with anchoring; Stop: accuracy with only the stop fallback, from a separate run; Parse: a boxed answer is found; Lenient: accuracy when the last number is taken if no boxed answer parses; No-loop: anchored accuracy counting answers written after a loop fallback as wrong; κ : nominal tokens per forward; nat.: dParallel with no per-forward floor. Bold: best per row within Parse, Accuracy, and Lenient.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
(a) Correct continuation after Imp (%)
Slot of Imp
B=8
B=4
Last slot
59.56 (596)
99.49 (197)
Earlier slot
50.91 (4,528)
99.34 (3,503)
(b) Official one-step block-8 outputs
MIMIC valid ( n=277 )
ReX valid ( n=3,613 )
Findings: present
277/277
3,613/3,613
Appendix
Table 5: Heading-prefix continuation by slot and output categories of official one-step block-8 outputs on the two development sets. Boundary counts pool 3,890 studies; parentheses give heading-prefix occurrences. Completion ambiguity and vocabulary analyses use each development set separately; OOV: out-of-vocabulary error candidates. ReXGradient (ReX).
Figure 3: Readable rate and exact entity retention on the two development sets. Numbers label fixed-position token budgets; diamonds mark the full pipeline. Orange: MIMIC-CXR; blue: ReXGradient.
MIMIC test ( n=517 )
ReX test ( n=3,651 )
CXP valid ( n=52 )
Condition
R-L
MTR
CIDEr
RaTE+
Sem
R-L
MTR
CIDEr
RaTE+
Sem
R-L
MTR
CIDEr
RaTE+
Sem
Constant, canonical
50.30
37.71
3.67
60.83
40.57
64.64
54.70
5.41
69.70
62.26
50.41
35.97
3.56
60.53
38.76
Constant, oracle ref.
51.50
40.88
3.51
54.93
43.31
66.37
53.83
5.62
60.96
61.31
56.86
47.20
3.12
55.62
30.06
Teacher B4, 4 steps
54.87
46.73
3.68
60.08
49.19
64.04
55.22
5.31
68.11
58.45
55.33
43.25
3.72
61.57
51.42
Teacher B8, 8 steps
55.04
46.95
3.61
59.84
49.54
63.36
55.39
4.92
68.75
54.77
55.92
45.35
3.76
62.07
53.43
Student B4, 1 step
51.24
43.73
3.34
56.10
44.65
59.62
51.75
4.17
62.57
43.61
49.73
40.40
3.02
54.97
46.18
Appendix
Table 6: Two constant reports and the four released checkpoints on the three evaluation sets; n denotes studies. Oracle reference: approximate medoid selected from evaluation references; Teacher B B and Student B B : ECHO-Base and ECHO with block size B . Bold: best per metric and set. R-L: ROUGE-L; METEOR (MTR); Sem: SemScore; RaTE+: positive-entity RaTEScore. ReXGradient (ReX); CheXpert-Plus (CXP).
Parse
Accuracy
Forwards
Data
Model
κ
TPF
Base
Rep.
Anch.
Base
Rep.
Anch.
No-loop
Reg.
Fires
Base
Anch.
GSM8K
SDAR, B=32
4
5.3
90.8
91.1
99.2
73.4
73.7
77.3
76.7
0
20/55/48
34.9
34.2
GSM8K
SDAR, B=32
8
10.2
49.2
50.6
93.7
31.9
33.0
47.8
40.5
2
54/145/449
28.0
20.4
GSM8K
SDAR, B=4
2
2.4
86.3
86.3
97.0
73.6
73.6
78.8
78.2
1
12/92/59
83.8
79.2
GSM8K
SDAR, B=4
4
4.0
38.0
38.0
91.9
29.3
29.3
50.1
39.7
0
15/215/539
78.0
36.1
GSM8K
Fast-dLLM v2
4
5.5
93.0
93.4
97.7
64.7
64.9
66.7
66.6
0
18/41/11
55.8
55.9
Appendix
Table 7: Answer-marker anchoring in every setting. Percentages are for the baseline (Base), the baseline with only the post-decoding marker collapse (Rep.), and anchoring (Anch.). No-loop: anchored accuracy counting answers written after a loop fallback as wrong; Reg.: problems that parse only without anchoring; Fires: intent/stop/loop writes; Forwards: mean forward passes per problem; TPF: measured baseline tokens per forward; κ : nominal tokens per forward; nat.: dParallel with no per-forward floor; GSM-Sym.: GSM-Symbolic.
View
MIMIC test
ReX test
CXP valid
Teacher B8 (8 steps)
Strict
55.04
63.36
55.92
Recovered
55.41
63.36
55.92
Raw
56.80
65.01
57.31
Unparseable (%)
0.8
0.0
0.0
Student B8 (1 step)
Appendix
Table 8: ROUGE-L views of identical generations on the three evaluation sets. Strict: unchanged official extractor; Recovered: all-content fallback; Raw: no section extraction; Unparseable: official evaluation-code failure rate; Published: ECHO’s reported value. Studies: 517, 3,651, and 52. Teacher B8 and Student B8: ECHO-Base and ECHO with block size 8. ReXGradient (ReX); CheXpert-Plus (CXP).
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 decode text by iteratively denoising masked token sequences, making the choice of which positions to decode a central inference-time decision. Most training-free decoding strategies use model confidence for position selection, assuming that high-confidence positions are ready to be decoded. In this work, we revisit this assumption by studying when confidence misleads fully non-autoregressive (fully non-AR) decoding. EOT tokens can receive high confidence and cause incomplete generation; inserting a suffix anchor can mitigate this issue but introduces local overconfidence near the anchor, causing anchor-adjacent tokens to be decoded too early. To address these issues, we propose Suffix-Anchored Confidence Modulation, a simple training-free method that inserts a short suffix anchor to encourage response completion and modulates confidence near the anchor according to decoding progress. This preserves the response-completion benefit of suffix anchoring while reducing premature decoding of anchor-adjacent tokens. Across text-only reasoning, vision-language reasoning, and code-generation benchmarks, our method consistently improves confidence-based fully non-AR decoding, outperforms explicit EOT suppression, and preserves the parallel decoding advantage of fully non-AR generation.
Open diffusion language models are marketed as parallel, non-autoregressive decoders, yet the order in which a shipped checkpoint actually commits its tokens is almost never measured. We instrument DiffusionGemma 26B, a masked discrete-diffusion mixture-of-experts model built on Gemma 4, hooking its sampler's accept step to record which canvas positions commit, when, and at what confidence. Across a 686-prompt, six-regime probe suite we find that its decoding is neither parallel nor block-autoregressive: it follows a partial left-to-right commit bias whose apparent strength depends almost entirely on the granularity at which you look. Order is weak token by token and strengthens smoothly as the analysis is coarsened, so the model's "block size" turns out to be an artifact of the measuring ruler rather than the architecture. The model commits in large simultaneous batches, leaving much of the within-batch order genuinely undefined rather than merely unobserved. The behaviour is regime-dependent: structured JSON is committed in essentially arbitrary order, and a position's commit confidence tracks correctness on mathematical reasoning but carries no signal on factual recall. Commitment is aggressive, finishing in a short late burst well inside the step budget, while task accuracy matches the model's autoregressive Gemma-4 sibling. Beyond these findings, our central contribution is methodological: measuring decoding order honestly demands handling trailing-EOS padding, within-regime confounding, commit non-monotonicity, block-size sensitivity, and large commit-batch ties, each of which can otherwise manufacture a decoding-order result that is not really there.