Uniform diffusion language models (UDLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising sequences of ordinary vocabulary tokens, any of which may be corrupted and subsequently revised. During training, UDLMs must denoise from a context that may itself be unreliable, whereas masked diffusion language models (MDLMs) always condition on a clean context. This challenging training objective makes UDLMs more FLOP-intensive to train than MDLMs, but it yields stronger downstream reasoning performance. Recently, selective looping, which recursively applies a few early Transformer layers within each denoising step, has been shown to improve training efficiency in MDLMs under an iso-FLOP budget. We investigate looping in UDLMs while keeping the training objective and sampler unchanged. We find that looping significantly improves training efficiency: looped UDLMs reach the validation NLL of a non-looped UDLM trained on about 0.5 trillion tokens with up to 2.8x fewer training FLOPs on OpenWebText and 3.3x fewer on FineWeb-Edu. We also find that, at a matched NFE budget, looped UDLMs reach up to 9.8% lower generation perplexity than the non-looped UDLM, with most gains achieved at moderate loop counts. Finally, we study different loop-count distributions and find that sampling smaller loop counts more frequently during training improves inference efficiency: on downstream tasks, this strategy uses 12% fewer loops than uniform loop-count sampling without degrading accuracy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Looping saves training compute on OWT and FineWeb-Edu. Best validation NLL so far against training FLOPs for uniform (left) and FLOP-proportional (right) looping, on OWT (top) and FineWeb-Edu (bottom).
Figure 2: Looped UDLM pipeline. Left: forward process and training. Right: reverse process with the Ψ sampler. L is the sequence length, K the vocabulary size, and S the number of loop iterations.
Figure 3: Design choices behind the looped models. (a) NLL at S=8 for each starting block of the looped slice (left) and best NLL for each training cap Smax (right). Purple marks the setting used in the paper. (b) All six noise-proportional evaluations are worse than uniform and FLOP-proportional at the same FLOPs.
Figure 4: Generation quality and diversity. Generative perplexity (top) and unigram entropy (bottom) against NFE. Dashed lines are S=1 and solid lines are S=6 . Looping lowers generative perplexity at the same NFE without lowering entropy.
Fixed looping
Adaptive looping
Uniform
FLOP-prop.
Dataset
Baseline
S=6
S=8
S=12
S=6
S=8
S=12
Uniform
FLOP-prop.
PTB
94.86
85.18
84.01
83.97
85.47
85.19
85.55
85.14
85.43
WikiText-103
34.46
31.70
31.39
31.31
31.65
31.46
31.44
31.75
31.71
LM1B
74.21
71.16
70.59
70.38
70.35
70.05
70.15
71.22
70.47
LAMBADA
51.83
48.02
47.76
47.70
46.38
46.33
46.45
48.21
46.56
Table 1: Zero-shot perplexity ( ↓ ). Mean over five seeds. Adaptive looping uses ϵ=0.1 and Smax=12 . Bold marks the best value in each row. Appendix G gives S=1 results and standard deviations.
Figure 5: Where adaptive looping stops ( ϵ=0.1 , Smax=12 ). (a) Stopping loop count of single denoiser calls on the eight datasets at each diffusion time, with triangles at the mean. (b) Share of the NLL gain from S=1 to 12 kept at the adaptive stop (filled) and at a fixed loop count with the same average cost (open). The top row gives the total gain of the uniform checkpoint. (c) Stopping loop counts over all noise levels for each evaluation.
Figure 6: Where the loop gain comes from. Single denoiser calls of the uniform checkpoint, averaged over eight datasets. (a) Brier score of the retention probability γ^tℓ (Equation 7 ) relative to S=1 . (b) Perplexity reduction from S=1 to 12 , split into the terms of Equation 6 . (c) Reduction at replaced tokens against the number of replaced neighbours within four positions.
Figure 7: Adaptive looping on multiple-choice tasks. (a) Average accuracy on the ten tasks against loop iterations, over five seeds. Ticks show the dense-equivalent cost of adaptive looping. (b, c) Loop count and NLL at the adaptive stop on 64 sequences, with 95% bands. FLOP-proportional stops earlier at low and middle noise levels with no higher NLL.
Figure 9: Training curves under the Kaplan FLOP convention (Chinchilla version in Figure 1 ).
Figure 10: Validation NLL and training loss by loop-count distribution on OWT (top) and FineWeb-Edu (bottom). There is no noise-proportional run on FineWeb-Edu. Left: exact validation NLL against optimizer step. Right: EMA-smoothed training loss (NELBO). The dashed line marks the end of the curriculum at step 5×105 .
Model
Architecture
DiT
Hidden size
768
Attention heads
12
Blocks
12
Time-embedding size
128
MLP ratio
4
Appendix
Table 4: Training configuration for pretraining on OWT and FineWeb-Edu.
Looped blocks
nH
nT
Smax
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
S=16
S=24
(a) Position sweep at Smax=12
0–1
0
10
12
3.539
3.456
3.449
3.454
–
3.475
1–2
1
9
12
3.548
3.425
3.416
3.420
–
3.447
2–3
2
8
12
3.567
3.433
3.423
3.426
–
3.451
3–4
3
7
12
3.548
3.428
3.418
3.421
–
3.447
4–5
4
6
12
3.548
3.433
3.423
3.426
–
3.455
Appendix
Table 5: Choice of looped blocks and training cap ( ↓ ). Validation NLL after 50 k steps on OWT with the uniform loop-count distribution. Each run loops two consecutive blocks, with nH blocks before them and nT after. Bold marks the best loop count in each row, and the shaded row is the setting used in the paper.
Base
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
NFE
–
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
Ancestral
32
45.54
43.91
42.59
42.60
43.02
41.73
44.82
42.65
42.92
43.60
42.08
64
40.40
39.87
37.98
37.60
37.98
37.37
40.42
38.16
38.75
39.21
38.39
128
38.17
38.63
35.61
35.22
34.98
35.58
39.06
36.55
36.35
37.50
36.66
256
37.52
37.49
34.23
33.95
34.42
34.07
36.50
34.37
34.67
34.95
34.56
Appendix
Table 6: Generation perplexity across loop counts ( ↓ ). Bold marks the best loop count within each looped checkpoint, and underline marks the best value in the row.
Base
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
NFE
–
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
Ancestral
32
5.42
5.40
5.42
5.42
5.42
5.41
5.40
5.41
5.42
5.41
5.41
64
5.40
5.40
5.41
5.40
5.41
5.41
5.38
5.40
5.41
5.41
5.41
128
5.39
5.39
5.39
5.40
5.40
5.40
5.39
5.40
5.40
5.41
5.40
256
5.38
5.38
5.37
5.38
5.38
5.38
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.38
5.38
Appendix
Table 7: Unigram entropy of generated samples across loop counts ( ↑ ). Bold marks the best loop count within each looped checkpoint, and underline marks the best value in the row.
Table 17
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
Base
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
PTB
94.86 ± 10.87
105.63 ± 11.81
85.18 ± 9.07
84.01 ± 8.88
83.97 ± 8.60
85.14 ± 9.01
103.87 ± 11.39
85.47 ± 9.65
85.19 ± 9.77
85.55 ± 9.56
85.43 ± 9.68
WikiText-103
34.46 ± 1.11
37.74 ± 1.26
31.70 ± 0.93
31.39 ± 0.94
31.31 ± 0.92
31.75 ± 0.89
36.96 ± 1.30
31.65 ± 0.95
31.46 ± 0.91
31.44 ± 0.91
31.71 ± 0.95
LM1B
74.21 ± 0.27
81.30 ± 0.31
71.16 ± 0.26
70.59 ± 0.27
70.38 ± 0.26
71.22 ± 0.27
78.64 ± 0.37
70.35 ± 0.33
70.05 ± 0.32
70.15 ± 0.32
70.47 ± 0.33
LAMBADA
51.83 ± 0.65
53.68 ± 0.88
48.02 ± 0.72
47.76 ± 0.78
47.70 ± 0.86
48.21 ± 0.71
52.65 ± 0.77
46.38 ± 1.04
46.33 ± 1.07
46.45 ± 1.12
46.56 ± 1.04
AG News
69.95 ± 1.73
80.98 ± 2.19
59.21 ± 1.53
57.93 ± 1.49
57.31 ± 1.54
58.68 ± 1.52
80.41 ± 2.43
59.88 ± 1.50
58.77 ± 1.42
58.35 ± 1.49
59.63 ± 1.50
Appendix
Table 10: Zero-shot likelihood perplexity across loop counts ( ↓ ). Mean and standard deviation over five seeds. Adaptive looping uses Smax=12 . Bold marks the best loop count within each looped checkpoint, and underline marks the best value in the row.
Task
Split
Questions
Choices
ARC-Easy
test
2,376
9,501
ARC-Challenge
test
1,172
4,687
HellaSwag
validation
10,042
40,168
WinoGrande
validation
1,267
2,534
PIQA
validation
1,838
3,676
MathQA
test
2,985
14,925
Appendix
Table 11: Multiple-choice tasks.
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
Base
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
ARC-Easy
28.66 ± 0.37
29.08 ± 0.47
27.89 ± 0.69
27.73 ± 0.34
27.55 ± 0.31
27.83 ± 0.16
29.17 ± 0.37
28.16 ± 0.61
28.43 ± 0.75
28.62 ± 0.85
28.70 ± 0.62
ARC-Challenge
25.26 ± 0.75
25.97 ± 0.99
26.60 ± 1.10
26.42 ± 0.60
26.84 ± 0.96
26.52 ± 0.73
25.97 ± 0.74
27.30 ± 1.37
26.59 ± 0.67
26.18 ± 0.24
26.23 ± 0.84
HellaSwag
25.49 ± 0.09
25.73 ± 0.21
27.94 ± 0.25
28.31 ± 0.23
28.62 ± 0.21
28.42 ± 0.16
26.56 ± 0.17
28.51 ± 0.20
28.76 ± 0.15
29.11 ± 0.12
28.91 ± 0.16
WinoGrande
50.26 ± 1.33
49.80 ± 1.49
50.32 ± 1.75
50.09 ± 1.62
49.85 ± 2.08
50.24 ± 1.81
50.58 ± 2.05
50.83 ± 1.49
50.69 ± 0.91
50.23 ± 1.33
49.98 ± 1.22
PIQA
51.37 ± 1.18
51.53 ± 0.84
51.39 ± 0.44
51.74 ± 0.52
52.01 ± 1.03
52.07 ± 0.93
52.73 ± 1.35
52.97 ± 1.09
53.26 ± 0.96
53.01 ± 0.91
53.06 ± 1.00
Appendix
Table 12: Zero-shot multiple-choice accuracy across loop counts. Mean and standard deviation over five seeds. Bold marks the best loop count within each looped checkpoint, and underline marks the best value in the row.
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
Task
Accuracy
Loops
Converged
Saved
Accuracy
Loops
Converged
Saved
ARC-Easy
27.83
9.61
77.4%
20.0%
28.70
8.71
88.3%
27.4%
ARC-Challenge
26.52
9.54
76.7%
20.5%
26.23
8.53
89.2%
28.9%
HellaSwag
28.42
8.49
89.3%
29.2%
28.91
7.30
97.0%
39.2%
WinoGrande
50.24
9.95
77.0%
17.1%
49.98
9.10
85.7%
24.1%
PIQA
52.07
9.43
79.8%
21.4%
53.06
8.50
89.8%
29.2%
Appendix
Table 13: Adaptive looping on multiple-choice tasks ( ϵ=0.1 , Smax=12 ). Saved counts the loop iterations skipped compared to fixed S=12 , bold highlights the better checkpoint.
Uniform
FLOP-proportional
Base
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
S=1
S=6
S=8
S=12
Adaptive
ARC-Easy
30.33 ± 0.26
31.58 ± 1.09
30.72 ± 0.82
30.56 ± 0.61
30.53 ± 0.71
30.42 ± 0.58
33.35 ± 0.81
31.41 ± 0.64
31.58 ± 0.72
31.55 ± 0.81
31.64 ± 0.53
ARC-Challenge
26.43 ± 1.29
26.18 ± 0.64
26.83 ± 1.00
26.83 ± 1.52
27.05 ± 1.51
27.17 ± 1.51
26.79 ± 1.46
27.34 ± 0.97
27.54 ± 0.67
27.46 ± 0.68
27.44 ± 0.54
HellaSwag
29.59 ± 0.13
28.92 ± 0.12
30.58 ± 0.18
30.72 ± 0.22
30.79 ± 0.19
30.64 ± 0.21
30.26 ± 0.11
30.83 ± 0.12
30.84 ± 0.19
30.84 ± 0.20
30.71 ± 0.19
WinoGrande
50.01 ± 0.68
50.70 ± 1.02
50.31 ± 0.97
50.70 ± 1.10
50.73 ± 1.40
50.61 ± 0.82
50.37 ± 1.46
50.70 ± 2.13
50.83 ± 1.74
50.75 ± 1.73
50.89 ± 2.19
PIQA
52.83 ± 0.59
53.82 ± 1.38
52.64 ± 0.96
52.80 ± 1.14
52.76 ± 1.26
52.83 ± 1.46
54.89 ± 1.51
53.78 ± 1.43
53.93 ± 1.32
53.70 ± 1.52
53.93 ± 1.59
Appendix
Table 14: Zero-shot multiple-choice accuracy on FineWeb-Edu. Mean and standard deviation over five seeds. Adaptive looping ( Smax=12 ) uses about 8 loop iterations per likelihood sample. Bold marks the best loop count within each looped checkpoint, and underline marks the best value in the row.
Masked diffusion models (MDMs) have emerged as a promising alternative to autoregressive models for language modeling, yet the effective design of transformer architectures for MDMs remains underexplored. In this paper, we show that selectively looping the early-middle transformer layers significantly improves both training efficiency and model performance in MDMs. We call this approach LoopMDM(Looped Masked Diffusion Model), which brings two key benefits: looping layers at training-time yields a depth-scaling effect without adding parameters, while varying the number of loops at inference-time enables flexible compute scaling. Despite the simplicity, the results are striking: across multiple pre-training corpora, LoopMDM matches the performance of same-size MDMs with up to 3.3 fewer training FLOPs, while its final performance outperforms them on various reasoning benchmarks, including up to 8.5 points on GSM8K. It even surpasses deeper non-looped MDMs trained with comparable per-step compute, indicating that selective looping is more effective than naive depth scaling. Furthermore, LoopMDM can scale inference-time compute by increasing the number of loops. Adaptively adjusting the number of loops throughout the sampling process further yields additional gains in compute efficiency while maintaining performance. Lastly, with attention analysis, we provide evidence that looping is effective in MDMs by promoting interactions among masked positions. Our code and weights will be publicly released.
Sanghyun Lee, Chunsan Hong, Seungryong Kim +3
1KAIST · 2KRAFTON · University of California, Berkeley
Although uniform diffusion language models (UDLMs) represent a promising diffusion paradigm, scaling them remains challenging. We identify the core obstacle as an over-uniform training objective and condition-target confusion during sampling. To address these, we propose Less Uniform Diffusion (LUDI), a novel UDLM framework. Specifically, we (i) introduce a less uniform loss that directs each reverse transition toward the clean token, and (ii) equip the model with per-token time embeddings that supply token-level corruption hints, enabling confidence-based few-step sampling. Experiments across scales show that LUDI yields cleaner supervision and improves few-step generation. We further continue-train a 7B autoregressive model into LUDI-7B, resulting in a UDLM capable of complex reasoning. It achieves a 3-token-per-step speedup over AR decoding and competitive performance compared with masked diffusion baselines, revealing that the full potential of UDLMs for complex generation remains to be unlocked.
Kaibo Wang, Ding Ding, Fangyu Ding +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Huawei Foundation Model Department
Diffusion language models (DLMs) enable fast generation by predicting multiple tokens in parallel, but their practical adoption remains limited by a persistent quality gap relative to comparably sized autoregressive (AR) models. We attribute this gap to a computation-difficulty mismatch: within a partially observed sequence, some unknown tokens are easy to predict, while others require substantially more computation. Existing DLMs nevertheless apply uniform computational depth to all unknown positions at each denoising step. We introduce ALoDLM, which replaces uniform computation with token-adaptive latent recurrence. At each denoising step, ALoDLM iteratively refines latent representations and allocates computation according to token difficulty. Tokens ready to commit are fed back as discrete context, while unresolved tokens retain and further refine their latent states through additional recurrent passes. To learn token prediction and computation allocation jointly, we formulate token-wise computation schedules as latent variables and derive a conditional negative evidence lower bound (NELBO). We train ALoDLM at 1.7B and 8B parameter scales. Across eleven benchmarks, ALoDLM outperforms all evaluated DLMs and the corresponding AR baselines in average benchmark score at both scales. ALoDLM also retains fast parallel decoding, yielding a strong quality-efficiency trade-off among evaluated autoregressive and diffusion models under optimized inference engines.
Liancheng Fang, Zhuowei Li, Youngeun Kim +10
University of Illinois Chicago · Amazon AGI · Korea University