Papers
arxiv:2611.10486

Test-Time Scaling for Diffusion Language Models with Frequency-Aware Remasking

Published on Nov 7
· Submitted by
Bowen Zuo
on Nov 11
Authors:
,
,
,

Abstract

Diffusion language models (DLMs) generate text through iterative denoising, where decisions about which tokens to commit or remask strongly affect output quality. Existing certainty-aware strategies rely on instantaneous confidence or entropy, but these local signals can be misleading on difficult reasoning problems. We formulate DLM test-time scaling as adaptive allocation of both inference compute and decoding strategies. Our two-stage approach uses a fast base sampler to solve easy questions, then applies frequency-aware remasking to the remaining hard questions. This strategy tracks how often each token's prediction changes across denoising steps and preferentially commits frequently changing tokens, encouraging samples to explore alternative reasoning paths rather than collapse onto the model's preferred trajectory. Experiments with LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Dream-7B-Instruct show consistent improvements over a strong adaptive allocation baseline, with absolute accuracy gains of up to 3.73 percentage points (LLaDA) and 7.33 percentage points (Dream) on MATH-500, and absolute coverage gains of up to 11.39 percentage points (LLaDA) and 10.98 percentage points (Dream) on HumanEval. On questions unsolved by the base certainty-aware strategy after 100 samples, frequency-aware remasking recovers solutions for 3.75% to 18.75% of examples.

Community

Paper submitter
•
edited 2 days ago

Hi everyone. This is a paper regarding DLM test-time scaling with a remasking strategy. The remasking strategy applies a different signal other than model confidence and is used aiming to boost generation diversity.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Committing the tokens whose predictions keep changing is a counterintuitive choice, and it makes sense as a way to stop samples from collapsing onto one path. Saving the extra compute for the hard questions is also practical. How does the gain change as the number of denoising steps grows?

·

Thank you for raising this question. I actually did not delve deeply into it. So I ran some experiments on the GSM8k hard set (the last table set in the paper). I used a no-block decoding setting with steps = {16, 32, 64, 128} and a generation length of 128. The results are

Denoising steps Low-confidence coverage (%) SAFE coverage (%) Distinct answers per question (Low-confidence / SAFE)
16 19.4 22.6 3.3 / 4.4
32 14.5 25.8 2.4 / 5.4
64 14.5 24.2 2.0 / 6.9
128 16.1 29.0 1.7 / 7.1

In this setting, the gap widens as the number of steps grows. Low-confidence remasking does not benefit from more steps, and its samples collapse onto fewer distinct answers, while SAFE keeps producing more distinct answers and its coverage trends upward. These are single-seed results on a small hard subset, so I would read this as a trend and not a precise law.

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.10486
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.10486 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.10486 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.10486 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.