Constraints Are Graphs, Not Chains: Exact Decoding for Diffusion Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Diffusion language models (dLLMs) predict masked positions in arbitrary order, but their exact constrained decoders still encode constraints as sequential languages, whose state must track every unresolved dependency between positions. For relational constraints this encoding grows exponentially: for same-order copy, every finite automaton needs $4^k$ states, deterministic or nondeterministic, and every context-free grammar has size $2^{Ω(k)}$, while the factor graph of the same relation has size $O(k)$ and a 16-entry peak table. We introduce FactorDLM, a training-free decoder that represents finite-domain relations as a factor graph and, at each denoising step, conditions the model's mean-field prediction on that graph exactly by variable elimination. Decoding cost then grows exponentially with the induced width of the constraint graph, which replaces automaton size as the governing parameter. Because a finite automaton is a chain-shaped factor graph, one compiler enforces syntax and nonlocal relations together: on JSON records with cross-field references, a schema automaton alone leaves references dangling, relational factors alone produce malformed JSON, and the combined plan is valid on both counts, including on records of variable length. Across nine relational benchmarks and three backbones, every output satisfies every declared constraint at 0.4-6.9% projection overhead, where unconstrained decoding is 0-79% valid, and compiled projection answers repeated queries 13.6x faster than CP-SAT with eight parallel workers. Because model-free rules solve three of five standard benchmarks, we construct benchmarks with exact chance and fixed-template floors, on which selecting among exact constrained samples beats greedy projection. Which encoding is cheaper, sequential state or direct factors, depends on the constraint and is computable before decoding begins.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
- Authors
- Su, J., & Zhang, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2609.32900
- OpenAlex
- W7214741172
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Constraint Satisfaction and Optimization
- Keywords
- diffusion language models, constrained decoding, factor graphs, relational constraints, variable elimination, finite automata, context-free grammars, JSON Schema validation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review