PreprintCited by 0Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization

Constraints Are Graphs, Not Chains: Exact Decoding for Diffusion Language Models

Open access
Su, Jianchang, Zhang, Wei·2026·arXiv

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2609.32900

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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)
OpenAlex
W7214741172
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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