Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Uniform diffusion language models (UDLMs) generate text by iteratively denoising sequences of ordinary vocabulary tokens, any of which may be corrupted and subsequently revised. During training, UDLMs must denoise from a context that may itself be unreliable, whereas masked diffusion language models (MDLMs) always condition on a clean context. This challenging training objective makes UDLMs more FLOP-intensive to train than MDLMs, but it yields stronger downstream reasoning performance. Recently, selective looping, which recursively applies a few early Transformer layers within each denoising step, has been shown to improve training efficiency in MDLMs under an iso-FLOP budget. We investigate looping in UDLMs while keeping the training objective and sampler unchanged. We find that looping significantly improves training efficiency: looped UDLMs reach the validation NLL of a non-looped UDLM trained on about 0.5 trillion tokens with up to 2.8x fewer training FLOPs on OpenWebText and 3.3x fewer on FineWeb-Edu. We also find that, at a matched NFE budget, looped UDLMs reach up to 9.8% lower generation perplexity than the non-looped UDLM, with most gains achieved at moderate loop counts. Finally, we study different loop-count distributions and find that sampling smaller loop counts more frequently during training improves inference efficiency: on downstream tasks, this strategy uses 12% fewer loops than uniform loop-count sampling without degrading accuracy.