Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 29 cited by

d1: Scaling Reasoning in Diffusion Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a two-stage post-training recipe for masked diffusion LLMs—masked SFT on reasoning traces followed by a new critic-free policy-gradient algorithm, diffu-GRPO—and shows it beats the base model across math, planning, and…

desk verdict First real shot at online RL for masked diffusion LLMs, with convincing gains, but the unvalidated one-step log-prob surrogate leaves the central 'policy gradient' claim unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12216 v2 pith:ULCPVUMB submitted 2025-04-16 cs.CL cs.LG

Siyan Zhao , Devaansh Gupta , Qinqing Zheng , Aditya Grover This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords diffusionlanguagemodelsmaskedreinforcementlearningpolicygradientGRPOreasoningsupervisedfine-tuningLLaDA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether non-autoregressive diffusion LLMs, which generate by iterative unmasking rather than left-to-right token prediction, can gain reasoning ability from the same kind of online reinforcement learning that recently transformed autoregressive LLMs. Its answer is yes, via a two-stage recipe called d1: first a masked supervised fine-tuning pass on 1,000 curated reasoning traces, then a new critic-free policy-gradient algorithm, diffu-GRPO, adapted to masked models. Applied to LLaDA-8B-Instruct, d1 improves accuracy over the base model on all four math and planning benchmarks, with the largest relative gains on planning tasks, and diffu-GRPO alone also lifts coding performance. The practical anchor is an efficient log-probability estimator—one unmasking forward pass on a randomly masked prompt—that makes policy-gradient RL tractable for masked dLLMs and doubles as a regularizer.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is diffu-GRPO's one-step log-probability estimator. Because a masked dLLM has no natural left-to-right factorization, the sequence log-probability $\log\pi_\theta(o|q)$ is approximated as $\sum_k \log \pi_\theta(o_k|q)$; each per-token term is obtained in a single call to the unmasking predictor by masking each prompt token independently with probability $p_{\text{mask}}$ and doing one denoising step on the fully masked completion. That random prompt masking is also the algorithm's regularizer: it generates a fresh perturbed context at every gradient update, letting the method run many inner updates per batch without overfitting. The clipped group-relative objective and reverse-KL penalty come from GRPO, but the probability ratios they need are supplied entirely by this estimator.

What would settle it

Run diffu-GRPO with a high-fidelity Monte Carlo estimator of the true log-probability (averaging many denoising passes per token) in place of the one-step estimator; if the reported benchmark gains disappear or reverse, the one-step estimator is not a faithful policy surrogate, and the gains are an artifact of its regularization rather than of correct policy-gradient optimization.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that the bottleneck for reasoning in masked dLLMs is post-training rather than architecture. diffu-GRPO extends GRPO to masked generation by replacing the autoregressive likelihood with a mean-field product of per-token probabilities, each estimated by a single forward pass of the unmasking predictor on a randomly masked copy of the prompt. This estimator turns each gradient update into a perturbed view of the same prompt-completion pair, providing implicit regularization and allowing many inner updates per collected batch; fewer online generations are then needed, cutting training cost. Combined with prior SFT on s1K reasoning traces, the authors report consistent gains: d1-LLaDA reaches 82.1 vs 78.2 on GSM8K and 40.2 vs 36.2 on MATH500 at the longest evaluated length, nearly doubles Countdown accuracy from the base model's best 20.7 to 42.2, improves Sudoku from 11.7 to 22.1, and diffu-GRPO improves HumanEval and MBPP from both the base and SFT checkpoints. The paper also frames diffu-GRPO as the first policy-gradient RL method for masked dLLMs.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that a product of per-token probabilities from a single randomly masked unmasking pass is close enough to the true sequence likelihood that the policy-gradient updates and KL penalty it computes remain well-directed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reasoning post-training is not tied to autoregressive generation: masked dLLMs can be improved by policy-gradient RL without any change to their architecture or pretraining objective.
  • Because each generated completion can be reused for many gradient updates through randomized prompt masking, the sample cost of RL post-training drops, making this kind of training feasible on modest GPU budgets.
  • Improved performance at evaluation lengths shorter and longer than the RL training length indicates the model learns transferable reasoning behavior, not a length-specific decoding trick.
  • The two stages compound: SFT supplies trace-level behaviors such as verification and backtracking, while diffu-GRPO reliably improves whatever checkpoint it starts from, with the largest absolute gains on tasks where the base model is weakest.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A likely broader lesson is that injecting stochastic perturbations of the context during likelihood estimation is a cheap substitute for larger batches or more online samples in non-autoregressive RL; the same idea could apply to other generative models without sequential factorization.
  • If the one-step mean-field estimator has only mild bias, the estimator is portable: it could attach PPO or REINFORCE to masked dLLMs and, more interestingly, to variable-length block-diffusion models, where the fixed-length cap of LLaDA would no longer limit reasoning-trace length.
  • A calibration study on held-out prompts—comparing one-step estimates against Monte Carlo log-probabilities from many denoising passes—would separate how much of the gain comes from accurate gradients and how much from the regularization that random masking provides.
  • Removing the fixed-length generation constraint could reveal whether RL alone produces longer 'thinking' traces in diffusion models, as it does in autoregressive models, or whether diffusion models need the SFT stage to learn self-correction first.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper introduces d1, a two-stage post-training recipe for masked diffusion large language models (dLLMs). Stage one performs masked supervised fine-tuning on the s1K reasoning traces, and stage two applies diffu-GRPO, an adaptation of GRPO in which per-token and sequence log-probabilities are estimated from a single unmasking forward pass on a randomly masked prompt. The authors report that d1 improves LLaDA-8B-Instruct on GSM8K, MATH500, Countdown, Sudoku, and coding benchmarks (HumanEval/MBPP), and claim that diffu-GRPO is the first policy-gradient RL method for masked dLLMs. The central technical object is the one-step mean-field log-probability estimator used in Eq. (4).

Significance. Conditional on the estimator being a faithful surrogate and the evaluation being robust, the paper makes a useful contribution: it extends the RL post-training recipe that has proven effective for autoregressive LLMs to masked diffusion models, and it releases code and detailed configuration. The two-stage recipe produces large, consistent gains on the planning tasks and modest gains on mathematics, and the ablations of the number of inner updates and the masking probability are informative. The main reservations are that the policy-gradient objective is built on an unvalidated surrogate, and that the reported numbers are selected from the best checkpoint without error bars; both weaken the central algorithmic and empirical claims. The reproducible code, released configurations, and clear task-specific reward designs are positive elements of the submission.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1–3.2 and Eq. (4)] The paper's central algorithmic claim is not yet substantiated because the log-probability estimator underlying diffu-GRPO is unvalidated. The estimator replaces the true per-token log-probability of a completion with a one-step prediction log f_theta(o_k | q' ⊕ masks) using a randomly masked prompt q', and then treats the sequence log-probability as a product of these independent per-token terms. LLaDA's decoder is an iterative, semi-autoregressive process (Appendix D: N/2 denoising steps, two tokens unmasked per step within 32-token blocks), so the true probability of a completion is a marginal over a multi-step procedure, not a mean-field product of single-step predictions. No bias bound, variance analysis, or comparison against LLaDA's own Monte Carlo log-probability estimator (Algorithm 3 of [30]) is given. In addition, the completions o_i are sampled from π_θold(·|q), while Eq. (4) evaluates the policies on the perturbed prompt q'; this train/sampling context mismatch is not accounted for. Please add either a theoretical justification (e.g., a bias bound or a consistency argument as p_mask → 0) or an empirical validation measuring the bias and variance of the estimator against a Monte Carlo baseline, and demonstrate that the resulting gradient direction is correlated with the true policy gradient. If such validation is not possible, the method should be reframed as a reward-weighted surrogate objective rather than a policy-gradient algorithm.
  2. [Sec. 4.1] The evaluation protocol for the RL-trained models selects the best checkpoint: LLaDA+diffu-GRPO and d1-LLaDA are "evaluated every 100 steps starting from step 600 and report the best results", while the baselines are evaluated on their final checkpoints. This makes the comparisons in Tables 1–3 optimistic and incomparable across methods, because the reported number is a maximum over training checkpoints rather than a fixed policy. The absence of multiple seeds and error bars further makes it impossible to assess whether the reported gains, especially the smaller GSM8K and MATH500 improvements, are statistically reliable. Please report results from the final checkpoint or from a fixed, pre-specified model-selection rule (e.g., best on a held-out validation set), and include standard deviations over at least three independent RL runs.
  3. [Table 3 and Table 1] The paper repeatedly claims that diffu-GRPO "consistently improves performance, regardless of the initialization point" (Sec. 4.2 and Table 3 caption), but the reported numbers contain counterexamples. In Table 3, on HumanEval with sequence length 512, LLaDA+diffu-GRPO scores 34.8 versus 37.8 for the base model, a −3.0 drop; in Table 1, on Sudoku with sequence length 512, d1-LLaDA scores 9.5 versus 11.0 for LLaDA+diffu-GRPO. These exceptions should either be corrected, explained, or used to qualify the consistency claims. The overall conclusion that the recipe helps on average may still be true, but the stated universal consistency is too strong.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Appendix C, after Eq. (5)] The text says "the probability that a token transitions to the masked state is α_t", but Eq. (5) and Section 2.1 define α_t as the probability of remaining unmasked, so the masked-transition probability is 1−α_t.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 8] The line "randomly mask tokens of prompt p" should refer to prompt q, matching the notation used elsewhere.
  3. [Section 3.1] The notation φ_πθ(o|q') used for the sequence-level estimate in Eq. (4) is not defined before its first use; please define it explicitly in Section 3.1.
  4. [Section 4.2] The phrase "predominent findings" should be "predominant findings".
  5. [Appendix D.1] The main runs set p_mask=0.15, while the ablation in Figure 6 indicates that p_mask=0.1 or 0.3 is more stable; please clarify whether the main results were obtained with an ablated-optimal value and whether p_mask tuning used the evaluation benchmarks.
  6. [Section 4.1 and Appendix D.1.1] The Sudoku evaluation metric is ambiguous; specify whether Table 1 reports full-solution accuracy or the proportion of correctly filled cells used in the reward function.
  7. [Figure 4 caption] The caption contains visible Unicode artifacts ("Num/uni00A0Effective/uni00A0T okens"); please clean up the captions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: d1's gains are measured against external benchmarks, and the diffu-GRPO log-probability estimator is an approximation rather than a self-referential construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: applying masked SFT followed by diffu-GRPO improves LLaDA-8B-Instruct on held-out math, planning, and coding benchmarks. These evaluations are external (GSM8K test split, MATH500, synthetic Countdown/Sudoku, HumanEval/MBPP) and compare against the base model and SFT-only baselines, so the reported gains are not constructed by the loss definition. The diffu-GRPO objective in Eq. (4) does replace the intractable multi-step dLLM log-probability with a one-step mean-field estimate via the phi-pi notation, but this is an explicit surrogate introduced for tractability, not a claim that the surrogate is the true policy by definition. The paper also evaluates on held-out or externally generated test sets rather than fitting a parameter and then predicting a closely related fitted quantity. The only trace of self-citation is the Mercury reference, which lists a co-author of this paper, but Mercury is cited solely as an example of efficient closed-source dLLMs in the introduction and plays no load-bearing role in deriving d1's algorithm or results. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain. The unvalidated one-step log-probability estimator is a soundness and approximation concern, not a circularity concern, because the empirical conclusions are measured against external rewards and benchmarks rather than being equivalent to the estimator's own definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several hand-tuned hyperparameters (p_mask, beta, G, SFT epochs, LoRA settings, reward weights) and on unvalidated approximations: the mean-field factorization of sequence probabilities and the one-step unmasking estimator. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • prompt masking probability p_mask = 0.15
    Probability of masking prompt tokens in the one-step log-prob estimator. Chosen by hand; ablation (Fig. 6) shows 0.1-0.3 are best, 0.7 causes instability.
  • KL penalty weight beta
    Controls reverse-KL regularization in Eq. (4), required for the algorithm, but its numeric value is not reported in the experiments.
  • group size G
    Number of completions sampled per prompt in diffu-GRPO; required by the algorithm but not specified in the experimental setup.
  • SFT epochs = 20
    The model is trained on s1K for 20 epochs; this training budget is a design choice, not derived from theory.
  • LoRA rank and alpha for RL = r=128, alpha=64
    Used for parameter-efficient RL training; hand-chosen hyperparameters.
  • reward shaping weights = e.g., correctness 2.0, format 0.5
    Composite reward functions combine format and correctness with hand-chosen weights; these shape the learned behavior.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The NELBO objective for a masked dLLM with linear noise schedule (Equation 8) is a valid training objective.
    Imported from LLaDA and masked diffusion literature; used as the SFT objective in Algorithm 2.
  • domain assumption The sequence log-probability of a masked dLLM generation can be approximated by the product of independently estimated per-token probabilities.
    Section 3.1 'Mean-Field Approximation of Sequence Log Probability'; this factorization ignores correlations between tokens that the diffusion process may capture.
  • domain assumption A single unmasking forward pass with a randomly masked prompt yields a usable estimate of the true per-token marginal probability under the denoising policy.
    Section 3.1 'One-Step Per-Token Log Probability Estimation'; no bias or variance analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption Random masking of the prompt during each gradient update acts as regularization and does not systematically distort the policy gradient.
    Section 3.2 and Figure 5; supported empirically but not theoretically.
  • standard math The noisy forward process q_{t|0} and the reverse transitions q_{s|t} in Appendix C correctly describe LLaDA's generative process.
    Background from the masked diffusion literature that d1 builds on.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of d1: Scaling Reasoning in Diffusion Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ULCPVUMB

@misc{pith2026250412216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: d1: Scaling Reasoning in Diffusion Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ULCPVUMB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12216}
}
read the original abstract

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong reasoning capabilities that benefits from online reinforcement learning (RL). These capabilities have primarily been demonstrated within the left-to-right autoregressive (AR) generation paradigm. In contrast, non-autoregressive paradigms based on diffusion generate text in a coarse-to-fine manner. Although recent diffusion-based large language models (dLLMs) have achieved competitive language modeling performance compared to their AR counterparts, it remains unclear if dLLMs can also leverage recent advances in LLM reasoning. To this end, we propose d1, a framework to adapt pre-trained masked dLLMs into reasoning models via a combination of supervised finetuning (SFT) and RL. Specifically, we develop and extend techniques to improve reasoning in pretrained dLLMs: (a) we utilize a masked SFT technique to distill knowledge and instill self-improvement behavior directly from existing datasets, and (b) we introduce a novel critic-free, policy-gradient based RL algorithm called diffu-GRPO, the first integration of policy gradient methods to masked dLLMs. Through empirical studies, we investigate the performance of different post-training recipes on multiple mathematical and planning benchmarks. We find that d1 yields the best performance and significantly improves performance of a state-of-the-art dLLM. Our code is released at https://dllm-reasoning.github.io/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Across four math and planning tasks, d1-LLaDA, which undergoes SFT followed by our proposed diffu-GRPO, consistently outperforms the base LLaDA-8B-Instruct model. We report results using the best performing generation sequence length for each task and model, with complete sequence length results shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Log Probability Estimation in diffu-GRPO. After generating completion o from prompt q using full diffusion denoising (left), we compute token-level log probabilities with a single forward pass per masking pattern (mid) and use the log-probability of one-step unmasking as our estimation. During each policy gradient update, we apply a random masking pattern to the prompt, creating q ′ , while keeping the completion fu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison with state-of-the-art dLLMs and AR LLMs of similar size: d1-LLaDA achieves the highest GSM8K score and the second-highest MATH500 score. LLaDA results are from our evaluation using 0-shot. Scores for other models are from Dream [48], using 8-shot prompts for GSM8K and 4-shot for MATH. Note that here we report d1-LLaDA with task-specific RL training. Seq=128 Seq=256 Seq=512 0 100 200 300 Num Effective Toke… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective Token Usage: As we increase the evaluation generation length, the number of effective tokens (average number of non-padding, non-EOS tokens per generation across tasks) grows and remains comparable for all the methods on MATH500, Countdown and Sudoku tasks. S…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of fixed vs. random masking across different policy optimization update values (µ). The first three figures show GSM8K correctness reward vs. the number of completions generated during RL training with different µ. Random masking consistently outperforms fix…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reward curves during RL training for the models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 29 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Flexibility Trap: Rethinking the Value of Arbitrary Order in Diffusion Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Arbitrary-order generation lowers the reasoning Pass@k of diffusion LLMs; constraining RL to autoregressive order (JustGRPO) improves accuracy and preserves parallel decoding.

  2. Error Analysis of Discrete Flow with Generator Matching

    math.ST 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors prove total-variation error bounds for discrete flow models trained with generator matching, covering rate-estimation error, approximation error, and early stopping error.

  3. AURORA-LM: Autoencoding Unified Representation for Continuous-Latent Diffusion Language Modeling

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A continuous-latent diffusion language model that keeps a full-width decodable latent and adapts the denoiser (low-rank noisy input, width-calibrated noise, trajectory consistency) beats compared diffusion/continuous ...

  4. Escaping Confidence Trap: Evolutionary Decoding for Mathematical Reasoning in Diffusion LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Evolutionary Decoding, a selection-and-mutation test-time strategy, improves LLaDA 2.0 mathematical reasoning on AIME and AMC benchmarks.

  5. From Interface to Inference: Eliciting Any-Order Inference from Any-Order Models

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Masked diffusion language models fail to exploit their any-order interface because of positional uncertainty; insertion-based (FlexMDM) and latent-segment (LatentMDM) variants recover distinct any-order inference beha...

  6. Trace-Based On-Policy Distillation for Masked Diffusion Language Models

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TOPD distills a stronger diffusion LLM into a weaker one on the student's own denoising trajectories and matches a reward-trained 4B model on MATH500 with 4x fewer rollouts.

  7. Hierarchical Domain Generalization

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Over infinite domains, hierarchy-uniform domain generalization is impossible for every nontrivial hypothesis class; a length-generalization bound is a property of the length hierarchy, not a hierarchy-free guarantee.

  8. Concurrent Image Understanding and Generation: Self-Correcting Coupled Markov Jump Processes

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    CO2Jump couples text and image denoising through cross-modal attention and remasking, achieving best joint accuracy on three concurrent-generation tasks.

  9. Nemotron-Labs-Diffusion: A Tri-Mode Language Model Unifying Autoregressive, Diffusion, and Self-Speculation Decoding

    cs.CL 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Joint AR–diffusion training yields one tri-mode LM that switches AR, diffusion, and self-speculation, beating open AR/diffusion models on accuracy and tokens-per-forward.

  10. LightningRL: Breaking the Accuracy-Parallelism Trade-off of Block-wise dLLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GRPO-based post-training method for block-wise diffusion LLMs improves average tokens-per-forward from ~3 to 7.3 while preserving accuracy.

  11. Tuning the Implicit Regularizer of Masked Diffusion Language Models: Enhancing Generalization via Insights from $k$-Parity

    cs.LG 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The masked diffusion objective decomposes into signal and implicit-regularizer terms, and restricting mask sampling to a signal-rich window improves language model pretraining and fine-tuning at scales up to 8B parameters.

  12. ParallelBench: Understanding the Trade-offs of Parallel Decoding in Diffusion LLMs

    cs.LG 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Parallel decoding in diffusion LLMs degrades quality on token-dependent tasks, and existing strategies cannot adapt parallelism to preserve accuracy, as shown by the new 17-task ParallelBench benchmark.

  13. d2: Improving Reasoning in Diffusion Language Models via Trajectory Likelihood Estimation

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new reinforcement-learning method, d2, estimates trajectory likelihoods for masked diffusion language models and improves their reasoning performance on math and logic benchmarks.

  14. Inpainting-Guided Policy Optimization for Diffusion Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-09 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    IGPO injects partial ground-truth reasoning hints into masked diffusion LLM generation during RL sampling, restoring non-zero advantages and improving math benchmarks, but as written the RL training set overlaps the e...

  15. Revolutionizing Reinforcement Learning Framework for Diffusion Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TraceRL aligns the RL objective with the DLM's actual step-by-step decoding, producing TraDo-4B/8B models that beat autoregressive baselines on math reasoning.

  16. Any-Order Flexible Length Masked Diffusion

    cs.LG 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FlexMDM is a discrete diffusion model that provably supports any-order generation over variable-length sequences by learning an insertion expectation alongside the unmasking posterior, validated by length-fidelity, ma...

  17. ParaThinker: Native Parallel Thinking as a New Paradigm to Scale LLM Test-time Compute

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ParaThinker trains LLMs for native parallel reasoning and reports 7 to 12 percent higher accuracy on math benchmarks over sequential thinking with modest latency overhead.

  18. DiffuCoder: Understanding and Improving Masked Diffusion Models for Code Generation

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 7B masked-diffusion code model plus complementary-mask GRPO (coupled-GRPO) improves benchmark scores and shifts decoding away from strict left-to-right order.

  19. On a few pitfalls in KL divergence gradient estimation for RL

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Differentiating KL estimates as losses gives biased or reversed KL gradients; the paper derives and tests unbiased sequence-level estimators.

  20. SUDER: Self-Improving Unified Large Multimodal Models for Understanding and Generation with Dual Self-Rewards

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SUDER uses the likelihood of reconstructing the original input from a sampled output as a self-reward, improving both understanding and generation in unified multimodal models without external supervision.

  21. Decomposing Elements of Problem Solving: What "Math" Does RL Teach?

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Reinforcement learning (GRPO) on math LLMs primarily increases execution robustness on already-solvable problems, not planning or coverage of new problems.

  22. TACG: Trajectory-Aware Commit Gating for Diffusion Language Model Decoding

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    Trajectory-aware commit gating (TILG + History Gate + capped extra promotion) improves or preserves DLLM accuracy while reducing steps and raising tokens-per-forward without retraining.

  23. Can I Have Your Order? Monte-Carlo Tree Search for Slot Filling Ordering in Diffusion Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-02 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Monte Carlo tree search can pick better slot-filling orders for masked diffusion language models, but the claimed advantage over autoregressive models depends on truncating the autoregressive baselines.

  24. Streaming-dLLM: Accelerating Diffusion LLMs via Suffix Pruning and Dynamic Decoding

    cs.LG 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A training-free inference framework prunes suffix masks, adapts confidence thresholds, and early-exits at EOS to speed up diffusion LLM decoding by up to 68×.

  25. Simple Policy Gradients for Reasoning with Diffusion Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-10 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    AGRPO makes GRPO-style policy gradients tractable for diffusion LLMs by Monte-Carlo sampling denoising timesteps, but the unbiasedness claim only holds for a step-level objective, not the token-level GRPO objective.

  26. Review, Remask, Refine (R3): Process-Guided Block Diffusion for Text Generation

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    R3 uses process reward model scores to decide which blocks of a masked diffusion language model's output to remask and regenerate, improving MATH accuracy from 29% to 43% without retraining.

  27. Boundary-Guided Policy Optimization for Memory-efficient RL of Diffusion Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    BGPO makes RL for diffusion LLMs memory-efficient by decomposing the ELBO-based objective into per-sample terms, enabling larger Monte Carlo sample sizes and better performance.

  28. A Survey on Latent Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes latent reasoning methods into vertical recurrence, horizontal recurrence, and infinite-depth diffusion, arguing that silent reasoning can beat explicit chain-of-thought.

  29. A Survey on Diffusion Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    A comprehensive survey of diffusion language models covering taxonomy, training and inference techniques, and comparisons with autoregressive models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 29 Pith papers

  1. [30]

    Large language diffusion models, 2025

    Shen Nie, Fengqi Zhu, Zebin You, Xiaolu Zhang, Jingyang Ou, Jun Hu, Jun Zhou, Yankai Lin, Ji-Rong Wen, and Chongxuan Li. Large language diffusion models, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2502.09992. 12

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  3. [2]

    Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740, 2024

    Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gall ´e, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet ¨Ust¨un, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14740, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Arel’s sudoku generator

    Arel. Arel’s sudoku generator. https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~arel/sudoku/main. html, 2025. Accessed: 2025-04-08

    work page 2025

  5. [4]

    Block diffusion: Interpolating between autoregressive and diffusion language models

    Marianne Arriola, Aaron Gokaslan, Justin T Chiu, Zhihan Yang, Zhixuan Qi, Jiaqi Han, Subham Sekhar Sahoo, and V olodymyr Kuleshov. Block diffusion: Interpolating between autoregressive and diffusion language models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09573

    arXiv 2025

  6. [5]

    Structured denoising diffusion models in discrete state-spaces.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:17981–17993, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Daniel D Johnson, Jonathan Ho, Daniel Tarlow, and Rianne Van Den Berg. Structured denoising diffusion models in discrete state-spaces.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:17981–17993, 2021

    2021

  7. [6]

    Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    Jacob Austin, Augustus Odena, Maxwell Nye, Maarten Bosma, Henryk Michalewski, David Dohan, Ellen Jiang, Carrie Cai, Michael Terry, Quoc Le, et al. Program synthesis with large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07732, 2021

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022

    Yuntao Bai, Andy Jones, Kamal Ndousse, Amanda Askell, Anna Chen, Nova DasSarma, Dawn Drain, Stanislav Fort, Deep Ganguli, Tom Henighan, et al. Training a helpful and harmless assistant with reinforcement learning from human feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.05862, 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 80 references
  1. [8]

    Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. Evaluating large language models trained on code.arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17161, 2025

    Tianzhe Chu, Yuexiang Zhai, Jihan Yang, Shengbang Tong, Saining Xie, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Sergey Levine, and Yi Ma. Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A comparative study of foundation model post-training.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17161, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavarian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, et al. Training verifiers to solve math word problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    FlashAttention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning

    Tri Dao. FlashAttention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  5. [12]

    BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Langua...

    2019

  6. [13]

    The llama 3 herd of models, 2024

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, Anirudh Goyal, Anthony Hartshorn, Aobo Yang, Archi Mitra, Archie Sravankumar, Artem Korenev, Arthur Hinsvark, Arun Rao, Aston Zha...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Rlef: Grounding code llms in execution feedback with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02089, 2024

    Jonas Gehring, Kunhao Zheng, Jade Copet, Vegard Mella, Quentin Carbonneaux, Taco Cohen, and Gabriel Synnaeve. Rlef: Grounding code llms in execution feedback with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02089, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Scaling diffusion language models via adaptation from autoregressive models

    Shansan Gong, Shivam Agarwal, Yizhe Zhang, Jiacheng Ye, Lin Zheng, Mukai Li, Chenxin An, Peilin Zhao, Wei Bi, Jiawei Han, Hao Peng, and Lingpeng Kong. Scaling diffusion language models via adaptation from autoregressive models. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Lear...

    2025

  9. [16]

    Likelihood-based diffusion language models

    Ishaan Gulrajani and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Likelihood-based diffusion language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:16693–16715, 2023

    2023

  10. [17]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Mercury: Ultra-fast language models based on diffusion

    Inception Labs, Samar Khanna, Siddhant Kharbanda, Shufan Li, Harshit Varma, Eric Wang, Sawyer Birnbaum, Ziyang Luo, Yanis Miraoui, Akash Palrecha, Stefano Ermon, Aditya Grover, and V olodymyr Kuleshov. Mercury: Ultra-fast language models based on diffusion. 2025. URL https://i...

    2025

  14. [21]

    Numina- math

    Jia LI, Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, Ben Lipkin, Roman Soletskyi, Shengyi Costa Huang, Kashif Rasul, Longhui Yu, Albert Jiang, Ziju Shen, Zihan Qin, Bin Dong, Li Zhou, Yann Fleureau, Guillaume Lample, and Stanislas Polu. Numina- math. https://github.com/project-numina/aimo...

    2024

  15. [22]

    Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10505, 2023

    Ziniu Li, Tian Xu, Yushun Zhang, Zhihang Lin, Yang Yu, Ruoyu Sun, and Zhi-Quan Luo. Remax: A simple, effective, and efficient reinforcement learning method for aligning large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.10505, 2023

    arXiv

  16. [23]

    Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783, 2025

    Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Discrete diffusion modeling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution

    Aaron Lou, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Discrete diffusion modeling by estimating the ratios of the data distribution. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  20. [27]

    Dynamic scaling of unit tests for code reward modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01054, 2025

    Zeyao Ma, Xiaokang Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jifan Yu, Sijia Luo, and Jie Tang. Dynamic scaling of unit tests for code reward modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01054, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    s1: Simple test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    Niklas Muennighoff, Zitong Yang, Weijia Shi, Xiang Lisa Li, Li Fei-Fei, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Percy Liang, Emmanuel Cand `es, and Tatsunori Hashimoto. s1: Simple test-time scaling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.19393, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Scaling up masked diffusion models on text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18514, 2024

    Shen Nie, Fengqi Zhu, Chao Du, Tianyu Pang, Qian Liu, Guangtao Zeng, Min Lin, and Chongxuan Li. Scaling up masked diffusion models on text.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18514, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Learning to reason with llms, September 2024

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with llms, September 2024. URL https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/

    2024

  24. [32]

    Your absorbing discrete diffusion secretly models the conditional distributions of clean data

    Jingyang Ou, Shen Nie, Kaiwen Xue, Fengqi Zhu, Jiacheng Sun, Zhenguo Li, and Chongxuan Li. Your absorbing discrete diffusion secretly models the conditional distributions of clean data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03736, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730–27744, 2022

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27730...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Tinyzero

    Jiayi Pan, Junjie Zhang, Xingyao Wang, Lifan Yuan, Hao Peng, and Alane Suhr. Tinyzero. https://github.com/Jiayi-Pan/TinyZero, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01-24

    2025

  27. [35]

    Openwebmath: An open dataset of high-quality mathematical web text, 2023

    Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Zhangir Azerbayev, and Jimmy Ba. Openwebmath: An open dataset of high-quality mathematical web text, 2023

    2023

  28. [36]

    Simple and effective masked diffusion language models

    Subham Sekhar Sahoo, Marianne Arriola, Aaron Gokaslan, Edgar Mariano Marroquin, Alexan- der M Rush, Yair Schiff, Justin T Chiu, and V olodymyr Kuleshov. Simple and effective masked diffusion language models. InThe Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processin...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Simplified and generalized masked diffusion for discrete data.Advances in neural information processing systems, 37:103131–103167, 2024

    Jiaxin Shi, Kehang Han, Zhe Wang, Arnaud Doucet, and Michalis Titsias. Simplified and generalized masked diffusion for discrete data.Advances in neural information processing systems, 37:103131–103167, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Open Thoughts

    OpenThoughts Team. Open Thoughts. https://open-thoughts.ai, January 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    Trl: Transformer reinforce- ment learning.https://github.com/huggingface/trl, 2020

    Leandro von Werra, Younes Belkada, Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Tristan Thrush, Nathan Lambert, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, and Quentin Gallou´edec. Trl: Transformer reinforce- ment learning.https://github.com/huggingface/trl, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8:229–256, 1992

    Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning.Machine learning, 8:229–256, 1992

    1992

  37. [45]

    Kodcode: A diverse, challenging, and verifiable synthetic dataset for coding

    Zhangchen Xu, Yang Liu, Yueqin Yin, Mingyuan Zhou, and Radha Poovendran. Kodcode: A diverse, challenging, and verifiable synthetic dataset for coding. 2025. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2503.02951

    2025 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Beyond autoregression: Discrete diffusion for complex reasoning and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14157, 2024

    Jiacheng Ye, Jiahui Gao, Shansan Gong, Lin Zheng, Xin Jiang, Zhenguo Li, and Lingpeng Kong. Beyond autoregression: Discrete diffusion for complex reasoning and planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14157, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Diffusion of thoughts: Chain-of-thought reasoning in diffusion language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07754, 2024

    Jiacheng Ye, Shansan Gong, Liheng Chen, Lin Zheng, Jiahui Gao, Han Shi, Chuan Wu, Zhenguo Li, Wei Bi, and Lingpeng Kong. Diffusion of thoughts: Chain-of-thought reasoning in diffusion language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07754, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Dream 7b, 2025

    Jiacheng Ye, Zhihui Xie, Lin Zheng, Jiahui Gao, Zirui Wu, Xin Jiang, Zhenguo Li, and Lingpeng Kong. Dream 7b, 2025. URLhttps://hkunlp.github.io/blog/2025/dream. 13

    2025

  41. [49]

    Limo: Less is more for reasoning, 2025

    Yixin Ye, Zhen Huang, Yang Xiao, Ethan Chern, Shijie Xia, and Pengfei Liu. Limo: Less is more for reasoning, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.03387

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical questions for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.12284, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fine-tuning discrete diffusion models with policy gradient methods.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01384, 2025

    Oussama Zekri and Nicolas Boull´e. Fine-tuning discrete diffusion models with policy gradient methods.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01384, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Lima: less is more for alignment

    Chunting Zhou, Pengfei Liu, Puxin Xu, Srini Iyer, Jiao Sun, Yuning Mao, Xuezhe Ma, Avia Efrat, Ping Yu, Lili Yu, et al. Lima: less is more for alignment. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 55006–55021, 2023. 14 A ...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Simply put, at any timestep, the probability that a token transitions to the masked state isαt

    = 1−α t, x i t =mask αt, x i t =x i 0 (5) whereαt (a.k.a noise schedule) is strictly decreasing int. Simply put, at any timestep, the probability that a token transitions to the masked state isαt. At the end of the forward process, i.e. att= 1, all tokens are guaranteed to be ...

    2000

  46. [54]

    Calculate the total number of stars in the three rows of 8 stars. 2. Calculate the total number of stars in the two rows of 6 stars. 3. Subtract the total number of stars in the first two rows from the total number of stars on the flag to find the number of stars in the 5-star rows

  47. [55]

    Let’s go through each step in detail:

    Divide the number of stars in the 5-star rows by 5 to find the number of 5-star rows rows. Let’s go through each step in detail:

  48. [59]

    Therefore, the number of stars in the 5-star rows is: 76−36 = 40

    The total number of stars on the flag is 76. Therefore, the number of stars in the 5-star rows is: 76−36 = 40

  49. [60]

    Two-thirds of the loaves are sold in the morning and half of what is left is sold equally in the afternoon and evening

    The number of 5-star rows is the number of stars in the 5-star rows divided by 5: 40 5 = 8 So, the number of rows of 5 stars on the flag is8 </reasoning> Model:LLaDA-8B-Instruct Generation Sequence Length:512 Question:A bakery produces 60 loaves of bread each day. Two-thirds o...

  50. [61]

    Calculate the number of loaves sold in the morning. 2. Determine the number of loaves remaining after the morning sale. 3. Calculate the number of loaves sold in the afternoon and evening. 4. Identify the number of loaves sold in the afternoon. 20 First, we calculate the numbe...

  51. [62]

    Calculate the total number of stars in the three rows of 8 stars. 2. Calculate the total number of stars in the two rows of 6 stars. 3. Subtract the total number of stars in the first two rows from the total number of stars on the flag to find the number of stars in the remain...

  52. [63]

    Calculate the number of stars in the three rows of 8 stars: 3×8 = 24 So, there are 24 stars in the three rows of 8 stars

  53. [64]

    Calculate the number of stars in the two rows of 6 stars: 2×6 = 12 So, there are 12 stars in the two rows of 6 stars

  54. [65]

    Subtract the total number of stars in the first two rows from the total number of stars on the flag: 76−24−12 = 40 So, there are 40 stars in the remaining rows

  55. [66]

    Divide the number of stars in the remaining rows by 5 to find the number of 5-star rows: 40 5 = 8 So, there are 8 rows of 5 stars. However, we need to check if the number of rows is 8, as if there are 8 rows of 5 stars, the total number of stars would be: 8×5 = 40 This matches...

  56. [67]

    Calculate the number of loaves sold in the morning. 2. Determine the number of loaves remaining after the morning sales. 3. Calculate the number of loaves sold in the afternoon and evening. 4. Identify the number of loaves sold in the afternoon. First. Calculate the number of ...

  57. [68]

    There are number of rows with 8 stars:3×8 = 24stars

  58. [69]

    There are number of rows with 6 stars:2×6 = 12stars

  59. [70]

    Next, we need the total number of stars on the flag, which is 76

    The these rows rows together have24 + 12 = 36stars. Next, we need the total number of stars on the flag, which is 76. We subtract the number of stars in the rows with 8 stars and 6 stars from the total number of stars: 76−36 = 40 So, there are 40 stars in the rows with 5 stars...

  60. [71]

    Calculate the total number of stars in the three rows of 8 stars. 2. Calculate the total number of stars in the two rows of 6 stars. 3. Subtract the total number of stars in the first two rows from the total number of stars on the flag to find the number of stars in the remain...

  61. [72]

    The total number of stars in the three rows of 8 stars is: 3×8 = 24

  62. [73]

    The total number of stars in the two rows of 6 stars is: 2×6 = 12

  63. [74]

    The total number of stars in the first two rows is: 24 + 12 = 36

  64. [75]

    Subtract the total number of stars in the first two rows from the total number of stars on the flag: 76−36 = 40

  65. [76]

    < /reasoning><answer>8 < /answer> 25 Question:Jennifer’s dog has 8 puppies 3 of which have spots

    Divide the number of stars in the remaining rows by the number of stars per row to find the number of rows of 5 stars: 40 5 = 8 Therefore, there are 8 rows of five stars on the flag. < /reasoning><answer>8 < /answer> 25 Question:Jennifer’s dog has 8 puppies 3 of which have spo...

  66. [77]

    Calculate the total number of puppies from both dogs

  67. [78]

    Calculate the total number of puppies with spots from both dogs

  68. [79]

    First, let’s find the total number of puppies from both dogs: - Jennifer’s dog has 8 puppies

    Determine the percentage of puppies with spots. First, let’s find the total number of puppies from both dogs: - Jennifer’s dog has 8 puppies. - Brandon’s dog has 12 puppies. - Total number of puppies = 8 + 12 = 20. Next, let’s find the total number of puppies with spots from b...

  69. [80]

    Total number of puppies = 8 + 12 = 20

  70. [81]

    Total number of puppies with spots = 3 + 4 = 7

  71. [82]

    Percentage of puppies with spots = 7 20 ×100. Let’s calculate the percentage correctly: Percentage= 7 20 ×100 = 7×100 20 = 700 20 = 35 The calculation answer.</reasoning><answer>35 </answer> 26 Model:d1-LLaDA Generation Sequence Length:512 Question:A bakery produces 60 loaves ...

  72. [83]

    Calculate the number of loaves sold in the morning. 2. Determine the number of loaves remaining after the morning sale. 3. Calculate the number of loaves sold in the afternoon and evening. 4. Identify the number of loaves sold in the afternoon. Let’s start by calculating the n...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.