CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AI2026-07-20

FlowBlock: Wavefront-Parallel Decoding for Self-Correcting Diffusion Language Models

Bing Tian, Haikun Liu, Xiaocheng Zhong, Zhuohui Duan, Zhaokai Luo, Huayi Jin, Zhiyong Wang, Xiaofei Liao

Block-wise diffusion large language models (dLLMs) decode sequentially at the block level, enabling effective KV-cache reuse across blocks but making inter-block decoding strictly serial. Prior work has attempted to unlock inter-block parallelism through post-training methods, but achieves only modest speedups and often degrades accuracy. We observe that self-correcting dLLMs offer a training-free alternative: token-to-token (T2T) editing can repair tokens drafted with a slightly stale upstream context, so a downstream block requires only an informative draft rather than a finalized predecessor. This turns block finality from a hard dependency into a scheduling resource. We propose \textbf{\flowblock{}}, a training-free parallel decoding framework built on two mechanisms. (i) \emph{Gated Wavefront Decoding} admits blocks into a bounded wavefront only when a readiness gate is satisfied, jointly refines active blocks via T2T editing, and commits blocks in order under a windowed block-causal mask that preserves exact frozen-prefix KV caches reuse. (ii) \emph{Heterogeneous Wavefront Packing} assigns each request an independent wavefront while packing asynchronous windows into dense, shape-stable batched forwards. Across different benchmarks, \flowblock{} improves tokens per second (TPS) over LLaDA-2.1 and LLaDA-2.0, two serial block-wise dLLMs, by up to 2.95$\times$ and 4.01$\times$, while reducing latency by up to 53.6\% and 77.1\%, respectively. It also improves average accuracy by 1.3 points. Compared with D2F, a training-based inter-block-parallel baseline, \flowblock{} achieves higher accuracy and up to 16$\times$ higher batched serving throughput.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.LGcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-23

Training Large Language Models for Self-Explanation Faithfulness

Yeoktatt Cheah, María Pérez-Ortiz, Noah Y. Siegel, Oana-Maria Camburu

We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) method to directly optimize the faithfulness of self-explanations - the extent to which a model's generated reasoning accurately reflects its internal decision-making process. While existing work focuses on evaluating faithfulness or using…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-23

Artificial Epanorthosis: Why large language models overuse a classical rhetorical figure, and how to mitigate it

Federico Boggia

A rhetorical figure that Cicero and Quintilian catalogued two thousand years ago reappears, systematically, in the text of large language models: epanorthosis, the self-correction of the specimen «This is not a course. It is a journey of transformation». This essay argues that th…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CVcs.AI2026-07-23

HyWorldVLA: A Vision-Language-Action Model with Hybrid World Modeling for Autonomous Driving

Quanfu Yu, Xian Wu, Hao Xu, Liulong Ma

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models augmented with world modeling represent a promising paradigm for end-to-end autonomous driving. While pixel-level future prediction enables fine-grained spatiotemporal reasoning, it compromises robustness in noisy driving scenarios. Conversely,…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.SEcs.AI2026-07-30

Specification-Guided Synthesis of Deadlock-Free Communication Protocol Refinements with Large Language Models

Yang Li, Ping Hou, Nobuko Yoshida

Ensuring behavioural correctness in communication protocols is a central challenge in distributed software systems, as subtle inconsistencies can lead to deadlocks. In such settings, protocol refinement - the safe substitution of a protocol that preserves correctness and compatib…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-24

From Isolated Tasks to Structured Capabilities: A Multilayer Taxonomy for Large Language Models

Shixin Fang, Jiachen Wo, Wenjuan Qin, Sihang Jiang, Yanghua Xiao

Large language model (LLM) evaluation spans diverse tasks and benchmarks, yet evidence remains organized around tasks rather than the capabilities they probe. This fragmentation limits cross-study comparison, obscures capabilities tasks recruit, and makes coverage gaps difficult…

View free PDFSource page