Does More Retrieved Evidence Help Visual Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Diffusion Language Models?

Chen Gao; Jiankun Wang; Jiaxin Bai; Xingcheng Fu; Yisen Gao; Ziwei Zhang

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 34 references

Does More Retrieved Evidence Help Visual Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Diffusion Language Models?

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In visual RAG with diffusion language models, retrieving more pages improves answer-page recall but lowers answer accuracy when all evidence is admitted, because parallel denoising can splice incompatible sources; a training-free entropy…

desk verdict Solid empirical study showing retrieval breadth hurts DLM-RAG accuracy without selective admission, but the theoretical certificate for ECF only holds under an unverified matched-residual assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07006 v1 pith:CI54EDUS submitted 2026-08-07 cs.CL cs.CV

Jiankun Wang , Yisen Gao , Ziwei Zhang , Xingcheng Fu , Jiaxin Bai , Chen Gao This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.CV

keywords diffusionlanguagemodelsvisualretrieval-augmentedgenerationevidenceadmissionsemanticconflictparalleldenoisinganswer-blockentropytraining-freeselectionquestionanswering

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 giving a visual question-answering diffusion language model more retrieved pages helps. It finds that more pages improve the chance that an answer-bearing page is available, but feeding all pages to the model often makes answers less accurate. The cause is semantic conflict: when two pages support different answers, the model's parallel position-by-position decoding can combine tokens from both pages into an answer neither page supports. Because this interference shows up in the first decoding step, the model's own uncertainty can be used to screen evidence before any answer is committed. The proposed training-free filter, ECF, keeps broad retrieval but admits only evidence that reduces first-step answer-block entropy, improving average accuracy by 2.62 percentage points over fixed top-k input.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is source-coherence loss in parallel denoising, formalized through a restricted two-source process in which a shared latent variable chooses the correct or competing source while the exact-marginal factorized proposal predicts each position independently; the result is hybrid mass $1-(1-\epsilon)^r-\epsilon^r$ for conflict width $r$, zero at $r=1$ and strictly increasing with $r$. The admission rule rests on the blank-controlled entropy gain $G_i = H(q,\{c_1,\mathrm{blank}(c_i)\}) - H(q,\{c_1,c_i\})$, a geometry-matched counterfactual that isolates the candidate's semantic contribution to the weighted first-step answer-block entropy; under matched local conditions, positive gain is equivalent to lower competing-source mass, lower hybrid mass, and lower parallel exact-match risk. Multi-granularity evidence units (full pages plus layout-derived regions) reduce within-candidate noise, and retrieval rank supplies an asymmetric prior: the second-ranked candidate is the default companion, while lower-ranked candidates must improve both the gain and the absolute joint confidence to be admitted.

What would settle it

Take a benchmark where the top-ranked page is wrong and a conflicting page is correct, run ECF's blank-controlled gain on each candidate, and check accuracy when the rule admits the lower-ranked page; Proposition 3 assumes the correct source is weakly dominant in the restricted first-step distribution, so if positive gain systematically selects the wrong page and lowers final accuracy, the central confidence–risk alignment is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is an availability–accuracy mismatch: in visual RAG with diffusion language models, expanding the retrieved candidate pool raises answer-page recall while unconditional admission of all retrieved pages lowers answer accuracy, with semantic conflict between pages as the primary driver. Under parallel denoising, a factorized position-wise proposal loses the shared latent source choice; when two pages support different coherent answers across $r$ positions, the proposal assigns probability $1-(1-\epsilon)^r-\epsilon^r$ to hybrid answers supported by neither page, and this unsupported mass grows with conflict width. The mismatch is observable before decoding in the first-step answer-block distribution, which makes evidence assessment possible without a full denoising run. The paper then constructs ECF, which builds multi-granularity evidence units from pages and layout-derived regions, compares each candidate against a geometry-matched blank in the target DLM's first-step block entropy, and uses retrieval rank as a prior to admit at most one companion to the top-ranked evidence. Across three multimodal DLMs and five visual QA benchmarks, ECF improves answer accuracy by 2.62 percentage points on average over the strongest fixed top-$k$ input and stays stable as candidate pools grow.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a blanked-out candidate differs from the real candidate only in meaning, and that the correct page is at least as probable as the competing page in the model's first-step distribution; if real retrieved pages violate that match, the entropy gain is no longer certified to track conflict risk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Retrieval breadth and evidence admission should be treated as separate decisions: candidate-pool size can grow as a retrieval budget without degrading decoding, because final decoding is capped at the admitted evidence.
Evidence admission can be decided before decoding: the first-step answer-block distribution exposes conflict, so a single forward pass suffices to gate candidates and the probe cost grows only linearly with pool size.
A generator-native signal can outperform semantic or surrogate-based selection: ECF beats training-free alternatives that rerank by frozen encoders, answer uncertainty, or utility surrogates, and the margin holds across three diffusion backends.
Selective admission is stable as pools expand: ECF accuracy stays roughly flat from $k=3$ to $k=5$ even as answer-page recall keeps rising, while fixed top-$k$ accuracy declines.

Reading between the lines

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

The same source-coherence argument should apply to text-only diffusion RAG, where conflicting passages play the role of conflicting pages; the mechanism in Theorem 1 does not depend on the visual modality, only on parallel decoding over a shared unresolved state.
The rank-prior policy always keeps the top-ranked page, so a dataset where the top-ranked page is the conflicting one and the correct page is second would stress the rule; a natural extension would allow rejecting or replacing $c_1$ on the same entropy evidence.
The choice of blank control is a design decision with measurable consequences: the appendix shows a white blank outperforms patch shuffling and unrelated real pages on ChartQA, suggesting that different controls may suit different document types.
The appendix's approximate guarantee suggests a practical threshold test: if the residual-entropy mismatch between real and blank contexts is large, ECF's zero threshold should be replaced by a positive margin before admitting a candidate; one could estimate that mismatch per dataset.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a genuinely useful empirical paper. The availability-accuracy mismatch is real, measured across three DLMs and five benchmarks, with controlled interventions showing that conflict, not mere image count, drives the degradation. The ECF admission rule, evaluated in the actual decoding context via a blank-controlled entropy gain, is a sensible, training-free, cheap procedure, and it beats fixed top-k and several stronger-looking baselines. The paper also publishes code.

The new things: the demonstration that parallel denoising loses source coherence, the early observability in the first-step answer block, and the decoupling of candidate-pool size from admitted context size. The Appendix F analysis is honest about being a restricted source process; Theorem 1 is real for that process, and the controlled validation matches it (hybrid mass grows with conflict width, parallel exceeds sequential).

Soft spots, in proportion. The biggest is that Proposition 3's guarantee relies on Assumption F.3's equal-residual-entropy condition between real and blank contexts, which is never measured on natural data. The paper itself concedes this: outside the matched basin, Gi is an empirically validated surrogate rather than a certified correctness certificate. So the zero threshold for admission is an empirical choice, not a proven one. That is fine for a practical method, but the abstract and early framing lean on the theoretical alignment more than the appendix ultimately supports. Second, the main tables report single-run accuracy with no confidence intervals; given the headline gains are around 2.6 percentage points, we need run-to-run variance. The appendix bootstraps the controlled study but not the main results. Third, the blank control is an all-white image; Table 10 tests it against patch shuffle and unrelated real pages, which is good, but that still does not establish that the white blank preserves the residual entropy term.

The empirical claim — more evidence hurts without selective admission, and conflict is the mechanism — is solid and independent of the theory. Even if the theoretical certificate is weaker than presented, ECF remains an empirically validated heuristic with consistent gains, and the paper is honest enough to include the limitation.

Who this is for: people building DLM-RAG pipelines and anyone working on evidence selection for non-autoregressive generators. It deserves serious review; the referee should push for confidence intervals and for a direct test of residual equality, but the core finding is worth publishing.

Recommendation: engage with it, send to review.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies visual retrieval-augmented generation with diffusion language models (DLMs). It reports that expanding the retrieved candidate pool increases answer-page recall but, when all retrieved pages are passed to the generator, often decreases answer accuracy across three DLMs and five visual QA benchmarks. The authors attribute this mismatch to source-coherence loss in parallel denoising, where a position-wise factorized proposal can assemble hybrid answers supported by neither the correct nor the conflicting page. Based on evidence that this interference is visible in the first-step answer-block distribution, they propose ECF, a training-free evidence-admission framework combining layout-based visual slicing with a blank-controlled entropy gain and rank-prior selection. ECF preserves the top-ranked candidate and admits at most one companion. Experiments report average accuracy gains of 2.62 percentage points over the strongest fixed top-k input and 2.37 percentage points over the best competing training-free method with LLaDA2.0-Uni.

Significance. The empirical phenomenon is useful for the visual RAG community: for diffusion-language-model RAG, retrieval breadth should be paired with selective evidence admission, and the first-step answer-block distribution is a plausible cheap signal for pre-decoding evidence assessment. Strengths include controlled second-image interventions across three backends, component ablations, released code, and a formal appendix stating assumptions and proofs. The main caveat is that the theoretical certificate for the entropy-gain admission rule depends on an unverified matched-context assumption, and the numerical claims rest on single-run accuracy without uncertainty estimates. The paper therefore contributes a valuable empirical hypothesis and heuristic, but the mechanism story and the operational zero threshold are not yet fully certified.

major comments (3)

[Appendix F, Assumption F.3 and Proposition 3] The operational interpretation of G_i depends crucially on Assumption F.3's equal-residual condition C_Ereal = C_Eblank = C together with epsilon in [0,1/2]. The appendix itself concedes, after Eq. (40), that outside this 'matched basin' the gain 'remains an empirically validated surrogate rather than a universal correctness certificate,' and no experiment in the paper tests residual equality on natural retrieval contexts. Since Section 4.2 uses the zero threshold G_i > 0 as the admission rule and the introduction motivates it by 'lower competing-source risk,' the theoretical bridge from positive gain to lower hybrid mass and lower sampling risk is not established for the natural contexts where ECF is deployed. Please either measure the residual C on natural data (for example, by estimating the restricted source entropy from renormalized top-two source tokens and comparing H(q,E) - A_R h_2(epsilon_E) for real and blank contexts) or explicitly downgrade Proposition 3's role to a heuristic motivation and soften the corresponding claims.
[Section 3.4, Table 1 and Appendix G] The controlled source-conflict validation is circular as support for the latent-source mechanism. Table 1 reports 'restricted hybrid source mass' obtained by renormalizing model probability over the correct and conflicting source tokens at conflict positions, which is precisely the restricted process posited in Assumptions F.1 and F.2. Consequently the parallel-vs-sequential difference in Table 1 follows substantially from the construction and cannot independently confirm that natural multi-page retrieval produces this two-source structure. The natural-retrieval evidence in Figure 2 and the direct Recall-vs-accuracy comparison do support the empirical mismatch, but the causal story attributed to source-coherence loss should be presented as an interpretation, with the controlled study as an illustration rather than as a test of the theory.
[Tables 2, 3, 5 and 12] All answer-accuracy tables report a single evaluation run over one fixed 2,500-example subset, with no confidence intervals, bootstrap errors, or multiple decoding runs. The headline gains (2.62 percentage points over the strongest fixed top-k input and 2.37 percentage points over the best training-free alternative) are therefore unaccompanied by any measure of variability, and it is unclear whether the ECF-vs-baseline differences are stable. Given that Table 3 shows nonmonotonic behavior (Dream-VL top-2 outperforms top-1 while LLaDA-V degrades sharply), the aggregate claims need per-configuration uncertainty estimates and, ideally, a paired significance test across the 15 model-dataset settings.

minor comments (3)

[Figure 1 and Table 3] The caption's statement that 'accuracy decreases as more pages are provided' is only true in macro-average; Table 3 shows Dream-VL top-2 accuracy is higher than top-1 (32.41 vs. 30.27). Please show per-backend fixed-k curves or qualify the caption to acknowledge backend-dependent nonmonotonicity.
[Section 4.1, Eq. (5)] The decay rate lambda is fixed at 0.5 with no sensitivity analysis. Since H(q,E), and therefore G_i and the admission decision, depend on lambda, a small sensitivity table over lambda values would help establish that the reported gains are not an artifact of this choice.
[Appendix A] The evaluation subsets are described as randomly sampled 2,500 question-answer pairs. Please state the sampling seed and confirm that all methods and all backends are evaluated on the identical subsets, since any subset mismatch would weaken the paired comparisons in Tables 2, 3, and 12.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the controlled source-conflict validation instantiates the restricted two-token process it claims to test, while the main empirical availability-accuracy and ECF results remain independent.

self definitional [Section 3.4 (Controlled source-conflict validation; Table 1) and Appendix G (Controlled-study details)]
"Controlled source-conflict validation. Table 1 evaluates the source-conflict prediction through a same-weight LLaDA comparison differing only in proposal construction. Hybrid mass is zero at r=1, increases with conflict width, and is consistently higher under parallel than source-conditioned sequential prediction for r≥2, but remains negligible for native Qwen AR. This supports source-coherence loss as the failure channel behind harmful multi-page input. ..."

Theorem 1's 'hybrid mass' is defined on the restricted source process of Assumptions F.1 and F.2, whose relevant probabilities are the per-position marginals over the correct and conflicting tokens. The controlled study obtains its measured quantity by the same renormalization, so the reported values are the theorem's Q_parallel,R(H_R | E) computed from the model's restricted marginals, not an independently observable full-vocabulary quantity. Consequently, the monotonic increase with conflict width r is a mathematical consequence of any fixed per-position mass and is built into the metric itself; Table 1 cannot falsify or independently confirm the two-source mechanism.

full rationale

The paper's principal empirical contributions are measured directly: the availability-accuracy mismatch uses fixed top-k inputs, a shared scorer, and natural retrieval pools, and ECF's accuracy gains are evaluated on five benchmarks with three backends and no fitted parameters. These results do not reduce to the theoretical analysis. The only load-bearing circular element is the controlled validation of the source-coherence theorem: the paper defines hybrid mass inside a restricted two-token process and then measures exactly that restricted mass by renormalizing model probabilities over the same two tokens, so the observed trend is partially self-definitional rather than an independent test. Proposition 3's confidence-risk alignment is derived from Assumption F.3, which includes equal residual entropy as an explicit local condition; the paper itself discloses that 'outside it, the gain remains an empirically validated surrogate rather than a universal correctness certificate.' This is a validity limitation, not a concealed circularity, and it does not by itself raise the circularity score. No self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, or fitted-parameter-as-prediction pattern is present. The verdict is therefore a low partial circularity score: the central empirical claims stand on their own, while one mechanism-validation step reduces by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The formal analysis is built on three explicitly stated assumptions (F.1-F.3) plus the standard masked-diffusion proposal form. F.1 and F.2 define the restricted source process and factorized proposal that make Theorem 1 exact; F.3 is load-bearing for Proposition 3. No new physical entities are introduced; the latent source variable S is an analytical abstraction whose behavior is fixed by Assumption F.1. The main empirically chosen quantities are lambda=0.5, the zero threshold, k=3, and the slicing constants.

free parameters (4)

lambda (block entropy decay rate) = 0.5
Weights earlier answer positions in Eq. (5); fixed by hand across all experiments and not tuned per dataset. It affects which candidates are admitted.
Admission threshold for Gi = 0
The policy admits a candidate only when the blank-controlled gain Gi>0. The zero threshold is a design choice exactly certified only under Assumption F.3.
Candidate pool size k = 3
Main results use k=3; k=4 and k=5 are explored in Table 5. The reported ECF gains depend on this retrieval budget.
Visual slicing parameters = 8px padding; 3% min area; 96px min side; max 3 fragments per page
Layout boxes are merged, padded, and capped according to these hand-set constants in Appendix C, defining the multi-granularity candidate units.

assumptions (5)

ad hoc to paper Assumption F.1: a shared latent source variable S selects the correct or competing source with probabilities 1-epsilon and epsilon, and all conflict positions follow the same source.
Defines the restricted two-source process used in Theorem 1. The paper does not show this holds for full-vocabulary DLM output; it is only instantiated on renormalized source-token pairs.
domain assumption Assumption F.2: the first proposal factorizes the exact marginals of the restricted joint as a product over positions.
Models position-wise parallel denoising in masked DLMs (Eq. 1). The exact-marginal restriction is an idealization introduced to isolate dependence loss.
ad hoc to paper Assumption F.3: real and matched-blank contexts share source-token pairs, conflict set, weights, and residual entropy C, with epsilon in [0,1/2].
Needed for Proposition 3 to equate Gi>0 with lower competing-source mass. The paper states this is a local condition and offers only an approximate guarantee when residuals differ.
domain assumption The first-step answer-block distribution is a faithful early signal of final answer quality.
Motivates using H(q,E) before decoding. Supported empirically by Figure 2 but not proven for all retrieval conditions.
standard math Standard probability and information-theoretic identities, including the product rule, KL decompositions, and monotonicity of binary entropy on [0,1/2].
Invoked in the Appendix F proofs; these are uncontroversial background results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Does More Retrieved Evidence Help Visual Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Diffusion Language Models?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CI54EDUS

@misc{pith2026260807006,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Does More Retrieved Evidence Help Visual Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Diffusion Language Models?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CI54EDUS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07006}
}

abstract

Visual retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) commonly expands the retrieved evidence set to improve answer-page coverage, implicitly assuming that all available evidence should be passed to the generator. We show that this assumption does not hold for diffusion language models (DLMs): retrieving more pages increases answer-page recall, whereas unconditionally passing all retrieved pages to the generator often reduces answer accuracy, primarily because of semantic conflict. A latent-source analysis explains this mismatch through source-coherence loss in parallel denoising, where position-wise proposals can combine incompatible visual sources into unsupported answers. We further find that such interference is already visible in the first-step answer-block distribution, making it possible to assess evidence before decoding. To preserve retrieval coverage while limiting harmful visual exposure, we propose the Entropy-Based Candidate Filter (ECF), a training-free evidence-admission framework. To reduce irrelevant content within individual candidates, ECF constructs multi-granularity evidence units; to identify beneficial additional evidence, it uses blank-controlled block confidence and retrieval rank to determine whether and which candidate should enter the final context. Across three multimodal DLMs and five visual QA benchmarks, ECF improves answer accuracy by 2.62 percentage points on average over the strongest fixed top-$k$ input and, with LLaDA2.0-Uni, by 2.37 percentage points on average over the best competing training-free result for each dataset. These results show that broader retrieval benefits visual DLM-RAG through selective evidence admission rather than unconditional evidence expansion. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/wjkuser/ECF.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07006 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Answer-page Recall@k and answer accuracy under fixed top-k input. ditional candidates can make generation less reliable. To explain this mismatch, Section 3.3 develops a restricted latent-source analysis of the first unresolved denoising state. When correct and conflicting pages support different coherent answers, multiple unresolved positions share a latent source choice, whereas a position-wise factorized proposa… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Fixed top-k input can improve answer-page availability while conflicting sources induce unsupported hybrid proposals. r LLaDA par. LLaDA seq. Qwen AR 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2 0.3017 0.1530 3.39×10−7 4 0.5842 0.2574 1.12×10−8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Overview of ECF’s three core components. Visual slicing constructs multi-granularity evidence units from full pages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Macro-average answer accuracy across DocVQA, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages

[1]

Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , month = apr, year =

Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering , author =. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , month = apr, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74
[2]

2024 , address =

Shi, Weijia and Min, Sewon and Yasunaga, Michihiro and Seo, Minjoon and James, Richard and Lewis, Mike and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Yih, Wen-tau , booktitle =. 2024 , address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.463 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.463 2024
[3]

Asai, Akari and Wu, Zeqiu and Wang, Yizhong and Sil, Avirup and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh , booktitle =. Self-. 2024 , url =

2024
[4]

Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = dec, year =

Active Retrieval Augmented Generation , author =. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = dec, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 2023
[5]

The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

Making Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context , author =. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

work page
[6]

Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = nov, year =

Chain-of-Note: Enhancing Robustness in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models , author =. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = nov, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.813 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.813 2024
[7]

Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts , author =. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 , url =

doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 2024
[8]

2025 , url =

Yu, Shi and Tang, Chaoyue and Xu, Bokai and Cui, Junbo and Ran, Junhao and Yan, Yukun and Liu, Zhenghao and Wang, Shuo and Han, Xu and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

work page 2025

Show all 34 references

[9]

2510.27261 , archivePrefix =

Li, Yinglu and Lu, Zhiying and Liu, Zhihang and Sun, Yiwei and Liu, Chuanbin and Xie, Hongtao , year =. 2510.27261 , archivePrefix =
[10]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

Structured Denoising Diffusion Models in Discrete State-Spaces , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2021 , publisher =

2021
[11]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

Argmax Flows and Multinomial Diffusion: Learning Categorical Distributions , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2021 , publisher =

2021
[12]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =

Simple and Effective Masked Diffusion Language Models , author =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.52202/079017-4135 , url =

2024 doi
[13]

2025 , eprint =

Large Language Diffusion Models , author =. 2025 , eprint =

2025
[14]

Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

The Flexibility Trap: Rethinking the Value of Arbitrary Order in Diffusion Language Models , author =. Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning , year =
[15]

Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning , year =

Self-Augmenting Retrieval for Diffusion Language Models , author =. Proceedings of the 43rd International Conference on Machine Learning , year =
[16]

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , month = jul, year =

Utility-Oriented Visual Evidence Selection for Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation , author =. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , month = jul, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1620 , url =

doi
[17]

2026 , eprint =

Unlocking the Potentials of Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Diffusion Language Models , author =. 2026 , eprint =

2026
[18]

2026 , url =

Kang, Wonjun and Galim, Kevin and Oh, Seunghyuk and Lee, Minjae and Zeng, Yuchen and Zhang, Shuibai and Hooper, Coleman Richard Charles and Hu, Yuezhou and Koo, Hyung Il and Cho, Nam Ik and Lee, Kangwook , booktitle =. 2026 , url =

2026
[19]

2026 , eprint =

Generation Order and Parallel Decoding in Masked Diffusion Models: An Information-Theoretic Perspective , author =. 2026 , eprint =

2026
[20]

2022 , address =

Masry, Ahmed and Long, Do Xuan and Tan, Jia Qing and Joty, Shafiq and Hoque, Enamul , booktitle =. 2022 , address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-acl.177 , url =

2022 doi
[21]

2505.19028 , archivePrefix =

Xie, Tianchi and Lin, Minzhi and Liu, Mengchen and Ye, Yilin and Chen, Changjian and Liu, Shixia , year =. 2505.19028 , archivePrefix =
[22]

Mathew, Minesh and Karatzas, Dimosthenis and Jawahar, C. V. , booktitle =. 2021 , publisher =. doi:10.1109/WACV48630.2021.00225 , url =

2021
[23]

Mathew, Minesh and Bagal, Viraj and Tito, Ruben and Karatzas, Dimosthenis and Valveny, Ernest and Jawahar, C. V. , booktitle =. 2022 , publisher =. doi:10.1109/WACV51458.2022.00264 , url =

2022
[24]

Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , month = oct, year =

Towards Complex Document Understanding by Discrete Reasoning , author =. Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia , month = oct, year =. doi:10.1145/3503161.3548422 , url =
[25]

2505.16933 , archivePrefix =

You, Zebin and Nie, Shen and Zhang, Xiaolu and Hu, Jun and Zhou, Jun and Lu, Zhiwu and Wen, Ji-Rong and Li, Chongxuan , year =. 2505.16933 , archivePrefix =

arXiv
[26]

2512.22615 , archivePrefix =

Ye, Jiacheng and Gong, Shansan and Gao, Jiahui and Fan, Junming and Wu, Shuang and Bi, Wei and Bai, Haoli and Shang, Lifeng and Kong, Lingpeng , year =. 2512.22615 , archivePrefix =
[27]

2511.21631 , archivePrefix =

Bai, Shuai and Cai, Yuxuan and Chen, Ruizhe and Chen, Keqin and Chen, Xionghui and Cheng, Zesen and Deng, Lianghao and Ding, Wei and Gao, Chang and Ge, Chunjiang and Ge, Wenbin and Guo, Zhifang and Huang, Qidong and Huang, Jie and Huang, Fei and Hui, Binyuan and Jiang, Shutong...

arXiv
[28]

2025 , eprint =

Tschannen, Michael and Gritsenko, Alexey and Wang, Xiao and Naeem, Muhammad Ferjad and Alabdulmohsin, Ibrahim and Parthasarathy, Nikhil and Evans, Talfan and Beyer, Lucas and Xia, Ye and Mustafa, Basil and H. 2025 , eprint =

2025
[29]

2025 , howpublished =

Vikas Paruchuri and Datalab Team , title =. 2025 , howpublished =

2025
[30]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16591 , year=

SING: Synthetic Intention Graph for Scalable Active Tool Discovery in LLM Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16591 , year=

arXiv
[31]

General-Reasoner: Advancing

Ma, Xueguang and Liu, Qian and Jiang, Dongfu and Zhang, Ge and Ma, Zejun and Chen, Wenhu , booktitle =. General-Reasoner: Advancing
[32]

Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 , pages=

Unifying deductive and abductive reasoning in knowledge graphs with masked diffusion model , author=. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 , pages=

2026
[33]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20948 , year=

Controllable logical hypothesis generation for abductive reasoning in knowledge graphs , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.20948 , year=

arXiv
[34]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05902 , year=

Autoregressive models in vision: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.05902 , year=

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , month = apr, year =

Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answering , author =. Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume , month = apr, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.74

[2] [2]

2024 , address =

Shi, Weijia and Min, Sewon and Yasunaga, Michihiro and Seo, Minjoon and James, Richard and Lewis, Mike and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Yih, Wen-tau , booktitle =. 2024 , address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.463 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.463 2024

[3] [3]

Asai, Akari and Wu, Zeqiu and Wang, Yizhong and Sil, Avirup and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh , booktitle =. Self-. 2024 , url =

2024

[4] [4]

Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = dec, year =

Active Retrieval Augmented Generation , author =. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = dec, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.495 2023

[5] [5]

The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

Making Retrieval-Augmented Language Models Robust to Irrelevant Context , author =. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , year =

work page

[6] [6]

Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = nov, year =

Chain-of-Note: Enhancing Robustness in Retrieval-Augmented Language Models , author =. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , month = nov, year =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.813 , url =

doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.813 2024

[7] [7]

Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =

Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts , author =. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume =. 2024 , publisher =. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 , url =

doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 2024

[8] [8]

2025 , url =

Yu, Shi and Tang, Chaoyue and Xu, Bokai and Cui, Junbo and Ran, Junhao and Yan, Yukun and Liu, Zhenghao and Wang, Shuo and Han, Xu and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

work page 2025