Papers › Stop-Think-AutoRegress: Language Modeling with Latent Diffusion Planning

Stop-Think-AutoRegress: Language Modeling with Latent Diffusion Planning

24 Feb 2026arXiv:2602.20528added by Syntology

Justin Lovelace, Christian Belardi, Sofian Zalouk, Adhitya Polavaram, Srivatsa Kundurthy, Kilian Q. Weinberger

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

The Stop-Think-AutoRegress Language Diffusion Model (STAR-LDM) integrates latent diffusion planning with autoregressive generation. Unlike conventional autoregressive language models limited to token-by-token decisions, STAR-LDM incorporates a "thinking" phase that pauses generation to refine a semantic plan through diffusion before continuing. This enables global planning in continuous space prior to committing to discrete tokens. Evaluations show STAR-LDM significantly outperforms similar-sized models on language understanding benchmarks and achieves >70% win rates in LLM-as-judge comparisons for narrative coherence and commonsense reasoning. The architecture also allows straightforward control through lightweight classifiers, enabling fine-grained steering of attributes without model retraining while maintaining better fluency-control trade-offs than specialized approaches.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

13 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 11 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from justinlovelace/STAR-LDM. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.20528, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections