Skip to content

Folders and files

NameName
Last commit message
Last commit date

Latest commit

 

History

26 Commits
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Repository files navigation

Diffusal

Do diffusion LLMs tolerate extreme weight quantization better than autoregressive LLMs? Measured on matched pairs — same authors, data, tokenizer, scale, recipe — with pre-registered thresholds (timestamped before each run). All experiments on a single RTX 2080 Super (8 GB).

Results so far

The publishable finding, with caveats and limitations: technical whitepaper (PDF).

Exp 0 — post-training quantization

MDLM-owt 130M dLLM versus its matched AR baseline. Values are relative to each model's own FP16 perplexity; negative excess means less dLLM degradation.

evaluation precision AR degradation dLLM degradation excess (dLLM − AR)
PTB likelihood INT8 −0.03% +0.62% +0.65 pp
Wikitext103 likelihood INT8 +0.21% +0.56% +0.35 pp
LAMBADA likelihood INT8 −0.03% +0.27% +0.30 pp
PTB likelihood INT4 +31.81% +20.85% −10.97 pp
Wikitext103 likelihood (primary) INT4 +26.84% +11.59% −15.25 pp
LAMBADA likelihood INT4 +24.77% +9.02% −15.74 pp
GPT-2-large generative anchor INT4 +96.2% +45.4% −50.8 pp
Likelihood ternary ~10⁴× FP16 ~10¹²× FP16 uninformative (pre-registered)

→ Pre-registered dllm_more_robust verdict fired: the diffusion model absorbs INT4 weight noise roughly 2× better than its AR twin, unanimous across PTB / Wikitext103 / LAMBADA.

Exp 0 — generative anchor (64 samples/condition, GPT-2-large oracle, entropy guard passing): INT4 costs the AR model +96% generative perplexity vs +45% for the dLLM. Ternary-PTQ models fail to produce a single valid sample. Corroborates the likelihood result — not a perplexity artifact.

Exp 2 — native ternary QAT replication (12 matched tiny models trained from scratch, BitNet-style STE, identical recipe, three seeds):

metric result
AR ternary tax +16.1% to +30.7%
dLLM ternary tax +4.2% to +15.4%
gap ratio R (dLLM tax / AR tax) 0.883 to 0.898
geometric mean R (95% t CI) 0.890 [0.872, 0.908]

→ The pre-registered no-extra-dLLM-tax criterion fires (upper CI 0.908 ≤ 1.25). The stronger pre-registered dllm_better criterion does not: its required upper CI below 0.80 was not met. This is a three-seed, 7M-scale, Wikitext103 feasibility result—not evidence of superior diffusion tolerance.

Details, caveats, raw values, and checkpoint hashes: experiments/exp0/RESULTS.md, experiments/exp2/RESULTS-replication.md.

Why this might happen

At a fixed position and commit set, a sub-margin logit perturbation can leave an argmax token unchanged. That limited identity preservation is not general error absorption: in 96 native commit-and-freeze trajectories, changing eight fixed tokens caused 65.7% FP16 and 66.3% ternary-QAT later-token disagreement; the QAT-minus-FP16 interval was [-2.2, +3.3] points. A wrong committed token remains conditioning context. See the exploratory result. This concerns the local commit-and-freeze sampler, not DiffusionGemma: its entropy-bound sampler re-noises non-accepted canvas tokens and recomputes acceptance each step. A custom post-hoc revisable-remasking probe also failed to absorb perturbations (~98% disagreement), but it was not trained under that sampler and is not evidence about DiffusionGemma. Next: train and evaluate a matched native revisable model under one frozen corruption/sampler pair.

The program

Measurement-then-build, defined in the whitepaper (LaTeX) and the thesis program:

  1. Exp 0 (done): PTQ degradation with matched AR controls — the excess is the only admissible evidence about diffusion.
  2. Exp 1 (two exploratory sampler conditions): native commit-and-freeze and a post-hoc custom revisable sampler both propagated perturbations, with no resolved QAT effect. Next: train a matched native revisable condition.
  3. Exp 2 (three-seed replication done): native ternary QAT with matched AR controls — the gap-of-gaps supports no extra dLLM tax at toy scale, not superior tolerance. End goal: a natively ternary (1.58-bit) masked diffusion model via AR-to-diffusion conversion at ~2–3B, where BitNet says ternary reaches parity.

Every experiment carries pre-registered thresholds and kill criteria (configs/), frozen and tagged before runs; amendments are new tagged commits with justification.

What this is not

Not "a 25B ternary dLLM in 6 GB" — activations, logits, and buffers dominate at small scale; in the current QAT checkpoint only 21.5% of model-state parameters are ternarized, for an idealized weight-only reduction of 1.23×. Not a claim about 7B+ models. Not calibrated PTQ — naive RTN by design, so the AR control carries the comparison.

Reproduce

experiments/exp0/ (PTQ grid + generative anchors) and experiments/exp2/ (QAT pilot) contain drivers, sanity tests, and resumable grid scripts; both run against pinned bd3lms with an sm75 flash-attn→SDPA shim (experiments/exp0/shim/, numerically validated). See experiments/exp0/PREP.md for the full bring-up log, including why zero-shot numbers must be reproduced through bd3lms (insert_valid_eos=False, per mdlm#22).

Non-obvious facts already established

  • LLaDA/Dream "low-confidence remasking" is commit-and-freeze: committed tokens are frozen forever. True remasking needs ReMDM-style retrofits.
  • The MDLM release ships a matched AR baseline — the confound-free control comes for free; its published zero-shot numbers reproduce only under the bd3lms eval protocol.
  • Ternary PTQ fails on every architecture (BitNet's premise) — only native ternary training is informative, and no dLLM QAT existed in the literature as of 2026-07 (verified sweep in whitepaper §2).

Citation and license

See CITATION.cff for citation metadata.

  • Diffusal-authored source code is licensed under the MIT License.
  • The paper, whitepaper, figures, and other research prose are licensed under CC BY 4.0.
  • third_party/ remains under its own upstream licenses.

About

Error dynamics of ternary quantization in masked diffusion language models — a measurement-then-build research program

Topics

Resources

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages

Contributors

Languages