Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Reconsidering Positional Supervision in Masked Diffusion Language Model Training

About

Masked diffusion language models (MDLMs) generate text by unmasking tokens in parallel and have recently emerged as alternatives to autoregressive language models. They can be viewed as parallel decoders trained with a position-wise cross-entropy (CE) loss, the same setup as non-autoregressive translation (NAT). In NAT, CE-trained parallel decoders have been argued to be sensitive to small positional shifts, since CE penalizes them harshly. We ask whether CE-trained MDLMs are similarly sensitive to such shifts under iterative decoding. To probe this, we apply a controlled intervention that introduces them during decoding. On LLaDA-8B-Instruct with Arena-Hard, displacing as little as 1% of generated tokens by one position substantially reduces win rates against the unintervened model, showing that MDLMs are sensitive to such small shifts under iterative parallel decoding. Motivated by this, we adapt connectionist temporal classification (CTC), an alignment-flexible objective known to mitigate it there, to MDLM supervised fine-tuning. By relaxing the strict position-wise match that CE imposes, CTC gives the loss room to absorb small positional shifts; concretely, we modified CTC objective to use a special <slack> token that absorbs positional uncertainty between target tokens and output positions, and a updated collapse map that preserves target surface forms. Across four open-ended generation benchmarks, the resulting model consistently improves over both the original model and a matched cross-entropy-trained baseline, with statistically significant gains on all four. These results identify training-side alignment flexibility as a useful design dimension for MDLM SFT, complementary to the inference-time approaches explored in prior work.

Mengyu Ye, Keito Kudo, Ryosuke Takahashi, Jun Suzuki• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Question AnsweringGPQA
Accuracy30.8
258
Code GenerationMBPP
Accuracy (%)38.4
146
Question AnsweringMMLU
Accuracy64.1
74
Open-ended Text GenerationArena-hard Creative-Writing
Pairwise Win Rate80.2
4
Open-ended Text GenerationCreative-Writing-Bench v3
Score27.4
4
Open-ended Text GenerationMTBench
LLM Judge Score3.7
4
Open-ended Text GenerationWildBench
Score-1.7
4
Open-ended Text GenerationArena-hard Hard-Prompt
Pairwise Win Rate51.4
4
Showing 8 of 8 rows

Other info

Follow for update