Masked diffusion language models offer parallel text generation, but independently sampling multiple tokens can disrupt their dependencies and change the output distribution. Exact continuous-time sampling avoids this approximation, yet typically requires one sequential model evaluation per token. We introduce SpecCTMC, a training-free speculative sampler that reduces this sequential bottleneck without a separate draft model. SpecCTMC proposes successive token updates using previously computed model predictions, evaluates their intermediate states in parallel, and applies an exact acceptance-and-correction procedure. We prove that SpecCTMC preserves the joint distribution of event times, generation order, and token values of the underlying continuous-time Markov chain. It therefore introduces neither time-discretization error nor additional factorization error from parallel decoding. Experiments on LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Dream-v0-Instruct-7B across five benchmarks demonstrate 1.73-4.38x fewer sequential model evaluations than direct continuous-time sampling, while preserving the reference sampling distribution. Our code is available at: https://github.com/kasakh/specctmc
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Sampling a masked diffusion LLM as a CTMC. (a) Direct event simulation is exact but requires one sequential target model evaluation per unmasking event. (b) Speculative dLLM decoders verify drafts against a finite-step greedy decoder, with restricted lossless guarantees. (c) SpecCTMC preserves the exact random event clock and the distribution of joint marks. The diagram’s N/K label is the full-acceptance ideal when all drafted states fit in one target-model call; generally, one speculative round commits up to K events.
Figure 2: Exact law preserving of SpecCTMC on NFE acceleration. On GSM8K with LLaDA-8B-Instruct (256 generated tokens), SpecCTMC reduces target NFEs by 2.88× relative to DirectCTMC while preserving expected accuracy. Finite-step samplers trade accuracy for fewer evaluations.
Method
Training free
Exact event times
Natural-event CTMC law
No separate drafter
Within-trajectory parallelism
No added factorization error
Continuous-time Markov chain simulation
Fixed-step ancestral / tau-leaping ( Campbell et al., 2022 ; Ren et al., 2025 )
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Sequential FHS (DirectCTMC) ( Zheng et al., 2025 )
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Parallel FHS ( Zheng et al., 2025 )
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Parallel masked-diffusion decoding
Fast-dLLM ( Wu et al., 2026 )
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Table 1: Comparison of masked-diffusion inference methods. “Natural-event CTMC law” is the stochastic process induced by the unchanged denoiser. “Within-trajectory parallelism” means that one target round can advance multiple events or positions.
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HumanEval
IFEval
Avg.
L
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
32
1.00 ×
1.75 (2)
1.15 ×
1.75 (2)
1.10 ×
2.39 (3)
2.19 ×
3.02 (5)
2.65 ×
3.42 (7)
1.62 ×
2.46
64
1.01 ×
1.83 (2)
1.18 ×
1.85 (2)
1.05 ×
1.85 (2)
2.48 ×
3.88 (6)
2.77 ×
3.56 (5)
1.70 ×
2.59
128
1.06 ×
2.70 (3)
1.18 ×
2.71 (3)
1.12 ×
1.90 (2)
2.37 ×
3.94 (5)
2.88 ×
4.02 (5)
1.72 ×
3.05
256
1.08 ×
2.81 (3)
1.10 ×
2.81 (3)
1.10 ×
1.93 (2)
1.92 ×
2.80 (3)
2.22 ×
4.38 (5)
1.48 ×
2.95
512
1.09 ×
3.81 (4)
1.07 ×
2.89 (3)
1.07 ×
1.96 (2)
1.38 ×
2.87 (3)
1.62 ×
2.91 (3)
1.25 ×
2.89
Table 2: Exact speculative CTMC sampling on LLaDA. For each generated length L we report wall-clock speedup of SpecCTMC over DirectCTMC (Wall-clock) and the reduction in sequential target-model calls (NFE); the draft depth used is in parentheses. Gray speedups are at parity (the paired 95% interval contains one); all others are faster, and no condition is slower. The last row reports accuracy (%) of DirectCTMC → SpecCTMC averaged over lengths; every paired 95% confidence interval for the SpecCTMC-minus-DirectCTMC accuracy difference contains zero. Bold marks the best value.
GSM8K
MATH
MBPP
HumanEval
IFEval
Avg.
L
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
Wall-clock
NFE
32
0.91 ×
1.73 × (2)
0.99 ×
1.74 × (2)
0.96 ×
1.75 × (2)
1.94 ×
2.67 × (4)
1.80 ×
2.87 × (5)
1.32 ×
2.15 ×
64
0.96 ×
1.83 × (2)
1.02 ×
1.84 × (2)
1.03 ×
1.83 × (2)
1.97 ×
3.46 × (5)
2.62 ×
3.72 × (6)
1.52 ×
2.54 ×
128
0.99 ×
1.89 × (2)
1.05 ×
2.71 × (3)
1.02 ×
2.74 × (3)
2.00 ×
2.69 × (3)
2.46 ×
3.97 × (5)
1.50 ×
2.80 ×
256
0.99 ×
1.95 × (2)
1.00 ×
2.82 × (3)
1.03 ×
3.72 × (4)
1.61 ×
4.32 × (5)
1.96 ×
3.63 × (4)
1.32 ×
3.29 ×
512
1.00 ×
2.94 × (3)
1.00 ×
3.82 × (4)
1.02 ×
3.88 × (4)
1.23 ×
3.82 × (4)
1.33 ×
2.91 × (3)
1.12 ×
3.48 ×
Table 3: Exact speculative CTMC sampling on Dream. For each generated length L we report the wall-clock speedup of SpecCTMC over DirectCTMC (Wall-clock) and the reduction in sequential target model function evaluations (NFE); depth used shown in () . The last row reports accuracy (%) of DirectCTMC → SpecCTMC, averaged over lengths.
Figure 3: Batching cost and complete-generation speedup depend on the hardware. (a, b) Forward-only relative cost of one three-candidate target call against one single-candidate call, versus complete sequence length for LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Dream-7B-Instruct on a B200 and an L40S GPU. The dashed line marks the cost of three separate calls and the dotted line one single-candidate call. At short lengths on the B200, one three-state call costs less than three separate calls. As sequence length grows, the three-state call approaches the cost of three separate calls on both GPUs, with the L40S reaching that regime at shorter lengths. (c) Complete-generation speedup of SpecCTMC over DirectCTMC versus speculation depth for Dream-7B-Instruct on HumanEval and GSM8K with 256 generated tokens, on a B200 (solid) and an L40S (dashed); shaded bands are paired 95% intervals. The same depth, acceptance, and evaluation reduction give different wall-clock outcomes on the two devices, and depth 8 on GSM8K exceeds L40S memory.
Dataset
L
Depth
Direct.
Spec.
NFE reduction
Accept.
MathVerse
256
8
256.00
43.17
5.93 ×
0.698
512
8
512.00
78.04
6.56 ×
0.784
MathVista
256
8
256.00
42.41
6.04 ×
0.718
512
8
512.00
76.48
6.69 ×
0.806
Table 4: DirectCTMC vs. SpecCTMC on multimodal LLaDA-V. NFE is averaged across the fixed evaluation set and sampling seeds.
Figure 4: Output quality versus sequential evaluation reduction. LLaDA-8B-Instruct, GSM8K, 256 tokens, T=1.0 . Columns: K answers per question. Rows: mean accuracy and Pass@ K , normalized to DirectCTMC at the same K (absolute DirectCTMC score in the lower-left corner). The horizontal axis is the ratio of median cumulative sequential target-model evaluations (DirectCTMC / method). From left to right, τ -leaping uses 256, 192, 64 and 16 steps and trapezoidal uses 64 and 8 steps; at S+1 and 2S+1 evaluations per answer, 16-step τ -leaping and 8-step trapezoidal are cost matched.
Figure 5: Stochastic sampling expands solution coverage, and exact speculation reduces its sequential cost. All results use LLaDA-8B-Instruct on five-shot GSM8K with 256 generated tokens. The dashed line is the strongest matched deterministic configuration, Fast-dLLM factor f=1.0 (81.25%; Table 7 ). (a): empirical Pass@ K for four selected fixed token temperatures; T=0.5 is highlighted. (b): measured DirectCTMC and SpecCTMC results at T=1.0 , with points corresponding to K∈{1,2,4,8,16,32,64} . At K=32 , both attain 85.94% observed coverage, while median cumulative sequential evaluations decrease from 8,140 to 2,901 ( 2.81× ).
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Term or symbol
Meaning
Process
DirectCTMC
Event-by-event exact simulation of the absorbing-mask CTMC: one target-model evaluation per unmasking event.
SpecCTMC
Exact speculative simulation of the same CTMC.
Natural event
One masked position unmasked at a random event time.
Mark z=(d,v)
Position d and replacement token v of one event.
State update Φ(x,(d,v))
Sequence equal to x except that position d is replaced by token v .
Appendix
Table 5: Terminology and notation used throughout the main paper and appendix.
Position choice
Token choice
Accuracy
Uniform random
Sampled
26.56%
Highest confidence
Sampled
62.50%
Uniform random
Highest probability
26.56%
Highest confidence
Highest probability
79.69%
Appendix
Table 6: Position choice and token choice for LLaDA-8B-Instruct on GSM8K with 256 generated tokens. Accuracy is reported in percent.
Table 7: Matched deterministic configurations on LLaDA-8B-Instruct and five-shot GSM8K with 256 generated tokens. All rows use the same checkpoint revision, prompts, scorer, and timing procedure. Scores and costs are our measured results. These configurations are deterministic under the tested settings, so repeated identical runs have the same Pass@ K as their single-answer accuracy.
Table 8: Additional greedy-derived speculative implementations. Each row is reported with its own measured Greedy reference because implementation, input shape, or cache definition differs. The final column reports the within-implementation ratio of Greedy time to method time; a value above one indicates acceleration relative to that reference. Absolute latency is not pooled across these implementations. Each method is named according to its evaluated configuration, and all numerical results are from our runs.
Refresh
Cached seq.
Cached Spec
Cache change
SpecCTMC change
interval
accuracy
accuracy
from uncached
from cached seq.
8
25.0%
35.9%
−7.8 [ −18.8 , 1.6 ]
10.9 [ −1.6 , 23.4 ]
16
26.6%
28.1%
−6.3 [ −15.6 , 3.1 ]
1.6 [ −10.9 , 14.1 ]
32
17.2%
20.3%
−15.6 [ −26.6 , −4.7 ]
3.1 [ −6.3 , 12.5 ]
Appendix
Table 9: Task quality for prompt-cached sequential CTMC and prompt-cached SpecCTMC. Changes are percentage points with 95% CI. Cache change compares cached sequential CTMC with uncached DirectCTMC. SpecCTMC change compares the two cached methods.
Refresh
Seq. target
Spec target
Refresh
Spec total
Call
Time ratio
interval
calls
calls
calls
calls
reduction
with 95% interval
8
253.9
100.6
32.9
133.5
2.530
1.697 [1.692, 1.700]
16
253.9
98.4
17.0
115.3
2.586
1.940 [1.936, 1.949]
32
253.9
92.7
9.0
101.6
2.751
2.211 [2.201, 2.217]
Appendix
Table 10: Target-model evaluation accounting for the 256-token prompt-cache experiment. Refresh calls apply to both cached methods. The final two columns compare cached sequential CTMC with cached SpecCTMC at the same refresh interval.
Quantity
Event by event
SpecCTMC
Sequential target calls
32.00
10.25
Sequential-call reduction
1.00
3.122
Target states evaluated
32.00
38.50
Additional proposal calls
0.00
1.50
Total checkpoint calls
32.00
11.75
Accepted events per round
Not applicable
2.631
Appendix
Table 11: Fast-dLLM-v2 checkpoint transfer. The same checkpoint is used to compute the event-by-event reference, proposals, and current verification probabilities.
In this paper we introduce token time continuous diffusion (TTCD), a new diffusion language model which (a) operates in continuous space, deterministically mapping Gaussian noise to a final token canvas with no further sampling, and crucially (b) incorporates a new notion of per-token times, with some tokens proceeding from noise to token at a faster rate than others. Continuous space modeling helps TTCD avoid the parallel sampling of multiple tokens, which is a key source of inaccuracy at high speedups for models that iterate purely in discrete space. The notion of per-token times helps TTCD to better model conditional generation, allows for more sure tokens to proceed at a faster rate, and allows for differentiated inter-token influences during refinement. TTCD outperforms discrete models at high speedups. We train a 160M parameter TTCD model on OpenWebText, and then self-distill it; we find that at high speedups we are comparable in unconditional generation quality, and outperform in conditional generation, several existing models of similar size trained, on the same data, and self-distilled. We achieve similar gains in Sudoku solving as well.
Recent works on continuous diffusion for discrete data have demonstrated performance on par with comparable discrete diffusion models. However, these continuous counterparts lack key features that are essential to practical use as language models, namely variable-length generation and support for a key-value cache, and they still lag behind the frontier of autoregressive and discrete diffusion quality. In this work, we address these limitations. We do so by introducing a model parameterization that uses position-dependent noise schedules to define semi-autoregressive (SAR) continuous diffusion language models (DLMs). Together with efficient training and sampling algorithms, we call this framework Clock Diffusion, and we present two special cases of our method: block and sliding window generation. We then define ClockDLMs, a family of Gaussian DLMs based on sliding window Clock Diffusion that attain state-of-the-art diffusion likelihood bounds on OpenWebText, even beating the performant block SAR discrete diffusion models. ClockDLMs trained on TinyGSM also substantially outperform continuous baselines on the GSM8K benchmark and match and exceed comparable SAR discrete diffusion models. Finally, building on our parameterization, we propose more efficient samplers that we dub Cache Grab, which adapt techniques from accelerated inference in discrete diffusion, such as committing tokens whose probabilities exceed a confidence threshold and self-speculative decoding, further improving our models' quality and efficiency.
Diffusion large language models (dLLMs) have recently emerged as a promising alternative to autoregressive (AR) LLMs, offering faster inference through parallel or blockwise decoding. However, their masked language modeling formulation remains incompatible with standard token-level speculative decoding, one of the most effective acceleration techniques for AR models. In AR decoding, the causal mask preserves temporally valid token-level contexts, enabling a target model to verify multiple drafted tokens in a single forward pass. In contrast, dLLMs rely on mask tokens and bidirectional attention, causing the effective context to change across denoising steps and preventing direct token-level speculative verification. To bridge this gap, we propose a simple but effective speculative decoding algorithm for diffusion language models, named SimSD, which mainly adopts a plug-and-play masking strategy that equips dLLMs with temporally valid token-level contexts for speculative decoding. Our method explicitly introduces reference tokens from draft-model predictions and designs an attention mask that regulates their interaction with current-step tokens, allowing dLLMs to compute valid logits for drafted tokens in a single forward pass. This restores the key verification ability provided by causal masking in AR models while preserving the parallel decoding advantages of dLLMs. The proposed method is training-free and can be flexibly integrated with other acceleration techniques such as KV cache and blockwise decoding. Experiments on SDAR-family dLLMs across four benchmarks show that our method achieves up to 7.46x higher decoding throughput while maintaining and even improving average generation quality.
Junxia Cui, Haotian Ye, Runchu Tian +9
University of California San Diego · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · 3Google +1