Source-linked AI summary
Counterfactual Probing for Parallel Unmasking with Hidden Forest Structure
Ryotaro Kawata, Satoshi Hayakawa, Taiji Suzuki
TL;DR
Accurate parallel sampling must account for unknown token dependencies, and discovering safe batches also consumes evaluations. The paper uses shared counterfactual probing to identify batches under hidden-forest assumptions. Its sampler attains fixed-accuracy sublinear evaluation and sequential-depth guarantees, alongside a worst-case lower bound for irreversible product commits.
Problem
Parallel token predictions do not by themselves capture dependencies, and evaluating hypothetical reveals to find safe batches adds to the cost of sampling.
Source: §1 · p. 1Method
The sampler shares counterfactual evaluations across dependence tests, then uses the resulting local structure to sample and permanently commit batches from singleton conditionals.
Source: §1 · pp. 1–2Results
For fixed sufficiently small accuracy and sufficiently large N, the sampler achieves seed-averaged TV error at most ε with sublinear total evaluations and sequential depth.
Source: §1 · p. 2Takeaways & Limitations
Under hidden-forest assumptions, accurate parallel unmasking is possible without first recovering the full forest.
Source: §7 · p. 9
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
Masked generative models offer parallel token prediction, but accurate parallel sampling must account for dependencies among tokens. When dependencies are unknown, finding safe batches also costs model evaluations. We study whether total evaluations, including discovery, can be sublinear in sequence length $N$; sublinear sequential depth then follows. We consider discrete distributions with hidden forest structure, accessed through a fixed approximate conditional oracle. Under explicit regularity conditions and uniform Hellinger error bounds, for any fixed target accuracy $\varepsilon\in(0,1/8]$ and sufficiently large $N$, our sampler achieves seed-averaged total-variation error at most $\varepsilon$, with total masked-state submissions and sequential depth both bounded by $\widetilde{O}(N^C \varepsilon^{-a})$ for constants $0<C<1$ and $a>0$. These guarantees use polynomial vocabulary size and an edge-response lower bound set by $N$ and $\varepsilon$. The sampler shares evaluations of hypothetical reveals across dependence tests to identify safe parallel batches without requiring full recovery of the hidden forest. A tunable parameter trades probing cost against irreversible commit rounds. In the same class, any admissible irreversible product-commit sampler attaining the same seed-averaged accuracy requires $\Omega(N^c \varepsilon^b)$ counterfactual submissions or commit rounds in the worst case, for constants $c,b>0$.
1 Introduction
The paper asks whether parallel unmasking can reduce total evaluations while preserving accurate joint samples when token dependencies are unknown. It proposes shared counterfactual probes to find safe batches and establishes sublinear sampling guarantees under hidden-forest and oracle assumptions.
1 Introduction
- With exact conditionals and a known forest, revealing one centroid per residual component samples exactly in O(log N) rounds.The paper studies whether this conditional separation can be exploited while also paying for discovery of safe batches.Source: §1 · p. 1
- Shared counterfactual probes compare singleton predictions under hypothetical token fillings without committing the tested values.Evaluations are shared across dependence tests, and both probing and generation evaluations count toward total cost.Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
- The sampler uses local structure to guide generation, independently samples batches from singleton conditionals, and commits them permanently.It combines random-color probes, neighborhood certification, singleton peeling, and parallel centroid commits without first recovering the original forest.Source: §1 · p. 2
- For fixed sufficiently small accuracy, the sampler achieves seed-averaged TV error at most ε with sublinear total evaluations and sequential depth.The guarantee holds under the target and oracle assumptions in Section 2 and for sufficiently large N.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Every admissible irreversible product-commit sampler meeting the same accuracy target requires a worst-case budget growing as a positive power of N in probes or commit rounds.The lower bound applies uniformly over the class.Source: §1 · p. 2
- The guarantees assume detectable edge responses, controlled tail responses, a rank-frequency envelope, polynomial vocabulary, and uniform oracle accuracy.The oracle accuracy is also sufficient for the N-step baseline to meet the output target.Source: §1 · p. 2
2 Problem formulation
The formulation studies sampling from a discrete target that factorizes over a hidden forest using a fixed conditional oracle. It specifies public and hidden information, regularity conditions, oracle accuracy, and the costs and constraints on probing and committing.
2 Problem formulation
- The vocabulary, its order, class parameters, accuracy target, and algorithm parameters are public, while the target, forest, marginals, ranks, and response witnesses are hidden.The main results fix ε before taking N to infinity.Source: §2 · p. 2
2.1 Hidden forest and regularity
- The target is a strictly positive law over N vocabulary-valued positions, with dependence represented by a hidden undirected forest.A committed history fixes revealed positions and leaves a residual forest on the remaining positions.Source: §2.1 · p. 2
- A directed response measures the maximum TV distance between readout conditionals when the source token varies under a fixed complete boundary.The source and masked readout are distinct positions.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
- Regularity requires tail tokens to have bounded conditional response, every edge to have response at least ω in both directions, and token frequencies to obey a rank envelope.The stated scaling uses polynomial vocabulary size and sets ω from ε and N.Source: §2.1 · p. 3
2.2 Oracle access and sampling objective
- The frozen oracle is fixed and deterministic; one submission returns full conditional probability vectors for requested masked positions at a cost of one evaluation.The cost does not depend on how many readout positions are requested.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
- A probe may reveal hypothetical residual values for inspection while leaving the committed history unchanged; a commit samples a batch from product singleton conditionals and fixes it permanently.Remasking committed positions and committing counterfactual values are not allowed.Source: §2.2 · p. 3
- The construction counts its initial readout, probes, and commit rounds, while parallel submissions count as sequential oracle stages and local computation is uncharged.Seed-averaged risk averages divergence over decision-rule seeds before mixing output laws; convexity also bounds the mixed output's TV distance.Source: §2.2 · pp. 3–4
- The oracle must approximate exact conditionals uniformly over valid state-readout pairs, with either the stated Hellinger or forward-KL error bound.The uniform requirement also applies to counterfactual and commit states and is stronger than average prediction accuracy.Source: §2.2 · p. 4
3 Main results
The results establish a sublinear sampler for the stated target–oracle classes and a query–round lower bound for admissible irreversible product-commit samplers. The sampler’s public degree parameter trades discovery submissions against commit rounds.
3.1 Sublinear sampling is possible
- The public degree parameter d trades discovery submissions against irreversible commit rounds, while target degrees may be arbitrary.Source: §3.1 · p. 4
- For sufficiently large N, a sampler achieves seed-averaged TV risk at most ε in case (i) and seed-averaged KL risk at most ε² in case (ii).The guarantees hold uniformly over the respective target–oracle classes; the displayed resource bounds hide powers of log N with ε fixed.Source: §3.1 · p. 4
- Since s > 1, the balanced choice of d makes both total submissions and sequential depth sublinear at fixed admissible accuracy.The section points to Table 1 for comparisons under the respective target and oracle assumptions.Source: §3.1 · p. 4
3.2 A query–round lower bound
- Every admissible irreversible product-commit sampler meeting the same seed-averaged TV accuracy target faces a worst-case query–round lower bound.The hard family uses a hidden matching whose dependence is revealed only when a source is set to its private trigger token; the construction links unresolved matched endpoints in product batches to TV error.Source: §3.2 · pp. 4–5
4 Algorithmic construction
The construction shares counterfactual probes to recover enough local forest structure while sampling, rather than first recovering the entire hidden forest. It then peels a high-degree core and commits centroids in parallel, with the degree cutoff trading probe cost against commit rounds.
4 Algorithmic construction
- The overall sampler drafts and colors, runs packed screens, peels claimed vertices singly, then recovers the terminal graph for centroid commits.The construction learns the residual forest as sampling removes vertices and does not require recovering the original forest first.Source: §4 · pp. 5–6
4.1 Building a single-source edge test
- The single-source edge test distinguishes nonedges, whose conditional row is constant across source values, from edges with TV diameter at least ω.It tests bank tokens and a representative for omitted tokens, with the tail replacement controlled within δtail = ω/2.Source: §4.1 · p. 6
4.2 Packing tests with random colorings
- Random colorings pack source–readout tests into shared oracle submissions, and strict separating majorities recover low-degree candidate neighborhoods.Each fresh coloring separates a fixed pair with probability greater than 3/4; when the strict-majority event holds, low-degree candidate lists equal the true neighborhoods.Source: §4.2 · p. 7
4.3 Peeling the high-degree core, then centroid layers
- Claim-based singleton peeling shrinks the high-degree core, after which the recovered residual forest supports parallel centroid commits.On successful screens, each phase uses fewer than 4|UG|/d singleton rounds; centroid deletion halves component sizes, yielding logarithmically many layers.Source: §4.3 · pp. 7–8
4.4 Resources and accuracy
- The public cutoff d trades screening submissions against commit rounds, while public caps bound resources even on failed-screen paths.When screens succeed, the target conditional factorizes over every commit batch; the analysis bounds oracle error and failed-screen contributions separately.Source: §4.4 · p. 8
5 Related work
The paper places its contribution alongside dependence-aware decoding, parallel sampling, and hidden-structure learning. It distinguishes its guarantees by accounting for discovery and sampling error in a hidden-forest setting.
5 Related work
- PUNT (Azangulov et al., 2026) shares hypothetical-reveal evaluations across contextual-independence tests, while this work establishes sublinear total submissions and an end-to-end sampling-error bound under hidden-forest assumptions.Source: §5 · p. 8
- Distribution-general conditional-oracle samplers provide exact- and noisy-oracle guarantees with smaller depth exponents, while dependence-based schedule analyses use correlation or adaptive estimates.The paper notes a path where TC, DTC, and effective TC are all Θ(N), and cautions that substituted upper bounds are not lower bounds on those samplers.Source: §5 · pp. 8–9
- Hidden-structure learning has used subset queries, samples, or Gaussian covariance entries; this work instead uses conditional-row probes to provide local certificates and charges discovery to sampling.Source: §5 · p. 9
6 Finite-size experiments
Exact-oracle experiments across four hidden-forest families compare total oracle submissions under an empirical batch-KL criterion. Submission counts are consistent with sublinear scaling over the tested finite-size range.
6 Finite-size experiments
- Four hidden-forest families were evaluated with an exact frozen conditional oracle at five sizes from N = 8192 to 16384.Source: §6 · p. 9
- The comparison used K + 2 SEMC ≤10−10L0, where K sums product-to-joint batch KL along sampled histories rather than target-to-output risk.The family-specific L0 is the one-batch KL cost at N = 2048.Source: §6 · p. 9
- Submission counts are consistent with sublinear scaling over the tested finite-size range.Figure 3 reports total oracle submissions, including preprocessing, probes, and nonempty commit rounds.Source: §6 · p. 9, Figure 3 · p. 9
7 Conclusion
The paper establishes sublinear parallel unmasking under hidden-forest assumptions, including dependence-discovery costs. Turning shared probing into computational savings with learned denoisers remains a practical challenge, alongside open questions about tradeoffs and broader structures.
7 Conclusion
- Sublinear parallel unmasking is established under hidden-forest assumptions, including dependence-discovery costs.Source: §7 · p. 9
- Turning shared probing into computational savings with learned denoisers remains a practical challenge.Source: §7 · p. 9
- Open directions include closing the probe–commit tradeoff gap, assessing remasking when resampling costs count, and extending guarantees beyond forests.Source: §7 · p. 9
AI use statement
The authors report extensive generative AI use throughout research and writing, including proof development, experiments, literature search, and manuscript preparation. They state that authors verified the proofs and cross-checked sources.
AI use statement
- GPT models assisted with research and writing, including central proof ideas, mathematical arguments, experimental design, and numerical code.Source: AI use statement · p. 10
- Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.5 also supported writing and generated Figures 1 and 2.Source: AI use statement · p. 10
- Lean 4 checked formalized mathematical claims, and authors separately audited correspondence with the manuscript and verified proofs.Source: AI use statement · p. 10
Code availability
This section documents the formal setting and algorithm interface, supporting formalization, verification records, experiment code, and saved results. It also specifies how oracle submissions, commits, and sequential depth are counted, and states finite matching-family lower bounds for adaptive query–round costs and target-error tradeoffs.
Code availability
- The Lean 4 formalization, verification records, experiment code, and saved results are available in the arxiv-v1 repository snapshot with pinned dependencies and reproduction instructions.The repository is at https://github.com/ryotaro-kawata-wa/counterfactual-parallel-unmasking.Source: Code availability · p. 10
A Full problem setup
- Public quantities and the algorithm are fixed before the hidden target and frozen oracle are chosen; appendices document proofs, comparison accounting, and finite-size experiments.The proof route covers the lower bound, upper bounds, comparison in Table 1, and experimental protocol.Source: A Full problem setup · p. 15
A.1 Target law and hidden forest
- The target is a strictly positive law over a finite vocabulary that factorizes on a hidden forest, with compatible endpoint kernels for each edge orientation.Strict positivity makes every committed history admissible.Source: §A.1 · p. 16
A.2 Response regularity
- Response regularity combines power tail-response continuity and two-sided edge nondegeneracy; the frequency envelope supports uniform asymptotic rates but is not needed for finite correctness.No lower Zipf bound or adjacent-rank separation is assumed.Source: §A.2 · pp. 16–17
A.3 Frozen conditional oracle
- The frozen conditional oracle returns full probability rows and may have adversarially correlated errors; in the Hellinger case, its uniform row-error condition is distinct from the seed-averaged output-TV objective.The normalized Hellinger radius εH remains independent of the output-TV tolerance ε.Source: §A.3 · p. 17
A.4 Algorithms, risk, and resources
- Admissible algorithms adaptively probe without changing committed history, then make irreversible product commits that draw each selected batch independently conditional on history and complete the sequence.Temporary probe assignments cannot replace commit draws, and commits are not filtered through accept–reject or verify-and-accept.Source: §A.4 · pp. 18–19
- Each non-preprocessing probe counts toward Qcf, each commit counts toward R, and reused returned rows add no submissions; sequential depth counts oracle stages.With the preprocessing readout charged, the full count is Qnc + R = 1 + Qcf + R; deterministic budgets bound Qcf and R on every path, while parallel submissions share depth but retain separate submission charges.Source: §A.4 · p. 20
B.1 Finite matching lower bound
- Theorem B.2 states a nonlinear finite adaptive query–round lower bound under the basic hard-family conditions, without requiring Nη^2 to be restricted.The section introduction says Appendix C proves the result and verifies class membership in Proposition C.2.Source: B Finite matching lower-bound statements · p. 20, §B.1 · p. 21
- Corollary B.3 is titled “Nonlinear finite target-error tradeoff”; it assumes equation 35, fixes ε ∈ (0, 1/8], and supposes an admissible algorithm has worst-case pathwise budgets (Q, R).The supplied statement continues with “Then at least one of” but gives no alternatives in these passages.Source: §B.1 · p. 21
C Proof of the lower bound
- The matching lower-bound proof allows randomized, adaptive, value-dependent algorithms, interleaved counterfactual submissions, and unrestricted returned bandwidth, while bounding deterministic envelopes for the two pathwise counters.Appendix G gives the finite calibration before the fixed-accuracy derivation of the case (i) lower bound.Source: B Finite matching lower-bound statements · p. 20, C Proof of the lower bound · p. 21
C.1 Proof overview
This section develops lower-bound arguments linking limited probing and commits to sampling error, using hidden matching-and-trigger instances, survivor and product-law invariants, collision bounds, and affinity loss. It also specifies a screen-and-commit sampler that uses counterfactual oracle replies to build candidate neighbor rows for public selection and commits.
C.1 Proof overview
- Under Theorem B.2’s budget conditions, few commit rounds force Ω(N/R) unresolved-edge collisions with constant probability, and their Hellinger losses yield an output-error bound via the adaptive midpoint identity.The argument evaluates query-disclosure and collision probabilities under the instance–midpoint law with the decision-rule seed fixed, then concludes a seed-averaged TV-risk bound.Source: §C.1 · p. 22, §C.3 · p. 27
C.2 Hard-family local facts and class membership
- Each hidden matching-edge law is strictly positive, has both marginals equal to π, and the product over edges satisfies the structural forest assumptions.These properties form part of the local facts used to establish the finite hard family’s class membership.Source: §C.2 · p. 23
2. Directed endpoint response. For source values a, a′
- The largest endpoint-kernel TV response on a matching edge is η, while replacing a nontrigger conditional with the neutral marginal costs at most order η²ρ.The selected oracle is exact except after a revealed nontrigger value at the matched source.Source: §C.2 · p. 23
4. One-edge squared-Hellinger loss. Finally, put
- The one-edge squared-Hellinger loss is uniform across matching edges and trigger indices and scales as η²; under the stated conditions, the finite matching family lies in the shared target/oracle class.The class inclusion includes the structural, response, rank–frequency, and oracle-accuracy conditions; the full asymptotic inclusion also requires the stated vocabulary-growth condition.Source: §C.2 · p. 23, §4 · pp. 24–25
C.3 Adaptive midpoint comparison and instance prior
- Normalizing the geometric mean of the true and product commit kernels defines a common adaptive path law whose expected product of local affinities equals the output affinity, despite history-dependent batches.The identity holds for each fixed instance and decision-rule seed.Source: §C.3 · pp. 25, 27
- Padding each terminated path with empty batches to N rounds preserves equation 63 and makes each complete output correspond to exactly one padded path.The correspondence follows from the seed-fixed deterministic decision rule and disjoint, exhaustive genuine batches.Source: §C.3 · p. 27
4. Convert the affinity sum into a midpoint expectation. Substituting
- Aff(p, q) = 1 − h2(p, q), the identity used to obtain equation 60 from the terminal affinity sum.The instance prior takes M uniformly over perfect matchings of [N] and independent uniform triggers Θ1, . . . , ΘN in [m].Source: §4 · p. 28
C.4 Unresolved edges, survivor invariant, and query retirement
- E[Dgen] ≤ NQ/m: query submissions retire at most one candidate per source, limiting edge retirements before commits touch them.A submission tests at most one candidate at each source.Source: §C.4 · p. 28
- The unresolved matching remains conditionally uniform, with each surviving trigger uniform over its untested candidates, at every operation boundary.This product-uniform survivor law supports the conditional collision calculation.Source: §C.4 · p. 30
2. Condition first on the retirement record. Fix a retirement record of positive conditional probability,
- Conditioning on a retirement record leaves the surviving matching and triggers uncoupled; the query observation adds no further survivor information.A hit or commit retires the affected edge and records both triggers; conditional on that record, compatible survivor configurations have equal weight.Source: §C.4 · p. 30, §2 · p. 32
- Conditioning on the retirement record makes each new observation’s conditional law invariant to adding the survivor state, proving the product law at operation boundaries.The argument establishes this for both queries and commits.Source: §2 · pp. 33–34
- The equality-test disclosure argument bounds query hits by tracking at most one candidate tested per source and accumulating conditional hit probabilities without assuming independence.A hit retires the edge, so each vertex can hit at most once while its edge is unresolved.Source: §2 · pp. 34–36
C.5 Common collision bookkeeping
- Every original matching edge retires exactly once, either through a successful counterfactual trigger test or through its first active commit batch.This pathwise edge-counting identity supports the batch-size constraint in the collision lower-tail proof.Source: §C.5 · p. 37
C.6 A Laplace bound for uniform-matching collisions
- For a fixed vertex set in a uniform perfect matching, sequential edge exposures yield a conditional Laplace bound for its internal-edge count without requiring independent exposures.The proof lower-bounds each exposure’s conditional success probability and iterates the conditional Laplace factors.Source: §C.6 · p. 37
- Starting with the empty sum at r=0, whose exponential is one, iteration to r=m yields the stated power without an independence assumption; for k≥4 and m≥k/8, μ≥k²/(32n)≥(k−1)²/(32n).Source: §C.6 · p. 39
C.7 An adaptive lower tail for batch collisions
- Under Q ≤ m/8 and 1 ≤ R ≤ N/8, adaptive edge counting and conditional Laplace bounds force collisions with constant probability, without assuming independence between commit rounds.The proof handles adaptive batches and changing unresolved pools; when R ≤ N/16384, the stated collision probability exceeds 1/4.Source: §C.7 · pp. 39, 41
C.8 Collision-affinity bound
- Unresolved edges whose endpoints are committed together impose a multiplicative affinity penalty, which the lemma bounds in expectation by the actual squared-Hellinger risk.For a collision edge, the affinity factor is 1 − d_edge; other edge-component affinities are at most one.Source: §C.8 · pp. 41–43
C.9 Nonlinear finite minimax bound
- When the query budget is a small fraction of the bank size, the lower bound forces R ≳ Nη^2/ε from order N/R missed edges, each contributing order η^2.The argument converts the collision event into a fixed-instance, seed-averaged TV-risk lower bound and then a minimax bound.Source: §C.9 · p. 43
D Algorithmic construction
- The randomized sampler uses only public parameters, commit history, and replies from one frozen oracle; it never reads the hidden forest or exact marginals.The construction specifies read-only screens and commits, with public caps bounding execution on every path.Source: D Algorithmic construction · p. 44, §D.1 · p. 44
D.1 Complete sampler and public parameters
- The complete sampler sets public degree and readout-size controls, screens before testing whether to stop, peels selected vertices, and repairs cycles before centroid commits.The readout chunk has maximum size Brd = ⌈N/J⌉; terminal processing repairs cycles in the estimated graph and then commits component centroids.Source: §D.1 · pp. 44–46
- After each commit, the sampler deletes that vertex and its incident edges, then recomputes cycle membership and degrees; a round-cap guard reserves the final round for a product commit.No new screen runs after deletion, and the fallback ends execution even if repair is incomplete; its final product law need not approximate the true joint conditional.Source: §D.1 · p. 46
D.2 One-time all-mask preprocessing
- One all-mask submission supplies noisy marginals for local vocabulary banks, while tokens outside each bank are represented by a reusable tail representative.The bank is selected using a buffered marginal threshold; preprocessing otherwise uses no commit draw.Source: §D.2 · pp. 46–47
D.3 Per-screen draft and source columns
- Each screen fixes a zero-query draft across its colorings, chunks, source colors, and columns; bank-column indices assign position-specific tokens, with a tail column for representatives.The draft uses public data, history, cached replies, and auxiliary randomness independent of coloring and commit randomness; it is not committed directly.Source: §D.3 · pp. 47–48
D.4 Packed randomized-color screen
- Each randomized coloring partitions readouts into bounded-size chunks, and probes vary source assignments while masking each chunk to compare oracle replies.The same color family is reused across chunks, source colors, and columns; source and readout colors differ, so their position sets are disjoint.Source: §D.4 · pp. 48–49
T b a MASK MASK
- Within each coloring, source-column replies yield TV-diameter votes for candidate neighbors; votes are aggregated across colorings, then a public selector caps each returned row.The standard selector keeps candidates with the highest total votes, breaking ties by position; deleting candidates from a nonoverflowing row can destroy low-degree exactness.Source: T b a MASK MASK · pp. 49, 51
D.5 Roles of the construction and proof route
This section presents the construction and proof route for screened parallel unmasking, establishing finite Hellinger-to-TV guarantees, exact neighbor-row certification for low-degree readouts, and peeling with centroid commits to expose a terminal forest. It proves successful-path contraction and sound stopping, bounds commit rounds and oracle submissions, and distinguishes cycle repair from the accuracy guarantee while enforcing the commit-round cap on every path.
D.5 Roles of the construction and proof route
- Cycle repair avoids an immediate all-residual product commit when the terminal estimate contains a cycle, but need not recover every true residual edge or improve accuracy over one batch.Failed-screen paths remain charged to the screen-failure budget.Source: §D.5 · p. 52
E Case (i): Hellinger-to-TV upper bound
- The proof establishes case (i) in Appendix D, uses screening, peeling, and resource counts for both accuracy cases, and maps both cases to Theorem 3.1.Appendix F supplies the case (ii) error analysis, while Appendix G specializes both cases to Theorem 3.1.Source: §D.5 · p. 52, E Case (i): Hellinger-to-TV upper bound · p. 53
E.1 Finite upper bound
- In case (i), the finite sampler’s TV error is at most εH + δfail, with adaptive oracle depth at most 1 + R + Tscr.The theorem also gives a pathwise bound of 3εH/2 for the specified Hellinger-close targets; charging the distinguished all-mask readout adds one submission.Source: §E.1 · p. 53
E.2 Proof overview
- The proof turns local screen certificates into safe parallel commits: accurate low-degree rows contract the high-degree core, while high-degree rows need only meet a size cap.For case (i), an analysis-only rule switches to singleton completion after the first failed screen; comparing output laws avoids conditioning on screen success.Source: §E.2 · pp. 53–54
E.3 Steps 1–3: Preprocessing and exact low-degree certification
- Preprocessing certifies omitted vocabulary tokens using a tail representative and bounds bank size under the rank-envelope condition; fresh randomized colors bound failure across adaptively reached screens.The screen-failure analysis does not require independence between calls or a union bound over bank values, columns, or drafts.Source: §E.3 · pp. 56, 58
- Residual components are conditionally independent, and a residual position’s exact conditional row is unchanged by revealing or altering nonneighbors, enabling packed probes at a fixed draft boundary.With a separating coloring, the packed screen exposes the relevant neighbors and recovers exact low-degree rows.Source: §E.3 · p. 59
- Under feasible preprocessing and δ < ω, successful screens recover exact neighbor sets for low-degree readouts; high-degree rows have only a size cap.No subset or correctness guarantee is asserted for high-degree rows.Source: §E.3 · pp. 59, 61
E.4 Steps 4–6: Peeling, terminal certification, and resources
- In the illustrated successful-screen example, one peel commit followed by two centroid batches uses three commit rounds, excluding screen submissions.The example’s count is not the total oracle depth.Source: §E.4 · p. 62
- On paths with successful screens, each nonempty peel phase leaves fewer than 4/d times as many high-degree vertices, and stopping certifies maximum residual degree at most d.Either an empty peel set or the peel-phase cap implies the degree bound; the terminal certified graph is the true residual forest, so cycle repair is skipped.Source: §E.4 · p. 63
- Peel sets contain fewer than 4N/d vertices, centroid recursion uses at most ⌈log2(N + 1)⌉ layers, and total masked-state submissions equal Qcf + R + 1.The round bound is extended to failed-screen paths by the public cap.Source: §E.4 · p. 66
- d + ⌈log2(N + 1)⌉ rounds suffice on a path where every reached screen succeeds, with no cycle repair or round-cap fallback.Each successful peel phase commits fewer than 4N/d vertices per round; centroid batches then halve the largest residual component until none remain.Source: §E.4 · pp. 67–68
- ⌈N/J⌉Qcf + 2N bounds returned oracle rows; the main construction sets J = d.Screen submissions read chunks of size at most ⌈N/J⌉, while preprocessing and disjoint commit batches account for 2N rows together.Source: §E.4 · p. 67
- All submissions within a screen issue in one parallel oracle stage, while preprocessing and each commit require one stage apiece.The per-screen submission count is obtained by summing chunks and columns across M colorings; repair adds no screen calls.Source: §E.4 · pp. 67–68
- The guard enforces at most R commit rounds on every path by reserving the final round for all remaining positions when the cap is reached.Without fallback, the remaining graph is a forest and centroid completion applies.Source: §E.4 · p. 68
E.5 Exact-commit hybrid and adaptive error composition
This section analyzes error composition in the exact-commit hybrid, separating oracle-row error from failed-screen error and relating sampler discrepancy to screen failures. It develops adaptive Hellinger and forward-KL analyses, including a fixed-seed joint-reference identity that bounds row-KL and batch-dependence contributions along each execution path.
E.5 Exact-commit hybrid and adaptive error composition
- For every structurally safe complete decision rule, its exact-commit hybrid has the target output law.Safety makes each batch’s product of exact rows equal its joint conditional; the adaptive chain rule then gives the target law.Source: §E.5 · p. 69
- Under A.7 (A2), each valid row pair’s squared-Hellinger error is at most (εH)^2/(2N), enabling coordinate-wise adaptive composition even for unsafe batches.The bound charges error to committed coordinates, so probes and rounds add no term.Source: §E.5 · pp. 69, 71
- The sampler’s conditional total-variation discrepancy from the analysis-only safe rule is at most the conditional probability of screen failure.The safe rule switches to singleton completion after a failed screen or before fallback; the inequality is seedwise, while failure control is averaged over seeds.Source: §E.5 · pp. 72–73, §5 · p. 73
5. Average the failed-screen probability over seeds. Averaging equation 191 over the seed gives
- Theorem E.1 combines oracle and failed-screen errors, yielding a bound of 3εH/2 with the stated calibration, alongside the proof’s submission, commit, and depth accounting.The proof charges the excluded all-mask preprocessing state as one non-counterfactual query.Source: §5 · p. 73
F Case (ii): forward-KL upper bound
- The forward-KL case uses the same product-commit sampler but analyzes batches against true joint conditionals, including unsafe batches, rather than the TV case’s product-of-exact-rows hybrid.The two guarantees use different public accuracy calibrations.Source: F Case (ii): forward-KL upper bound · p. 73
F.1 Oracle condition and output objective
- The forward-KL oracle definition assumes a strictly positive target and κ ≥ 0, and specifies strictly positive deterministic frozen maps.The passage introduces the oracle condition and seed-averaged KL risk.Source: §F.1 · p. 73
- The forward-KL result uses a public Hellinger radius for existing preprocessing and screen certificates; reverse row KL suffices for (A2), but is not the assumption used.The Hellinger bound is uniform over masked states, including counterfactual and draft-filled inputs; no converse inclusion or output-KL bound from (A2) alone is asserted.Source: §F.1 · p. 74
F.2 Adaptive joint-reference identity
- For every fixed decision-rule seed, the analysis-only joint-reference process has output law P, and its adaptive KL decomposes into batch total correlation plus row-KL errors.The identity applies even when selected batches are not structurally safe.Source: §F.2 · p. 74
4. Bound the pathwise sums. Uniform row accuracy and P
- Uniform row accuracy bounds the pathwise row-KL sum by Nκ; total correlation is at most N log V and vanishes for structurally safe batches.Safe batches have product true conditionals; the total-correlation bound follows by summing the per-batch bounds.Source: §F.2 · p. 74, §4 · p. 75
F.3 Finite bound and the epsilon calibration
The finite forward-KL bound charges row error on every path and total correlation only on failed-screen paths; calibration then connects the finite upper and lower bounds to the fixed-accuracy main theorems.
F.3 Finite bound and the epsilon calibration
- Expected output KL is at most Nκ + N log V times the joint-reference-and-seed failure probability.The proof charges failed-screen paths through their finite total-correlation cost.Source: §F.3 · pp. 76–77
- Theorem F.3 bounds resources on every path, including failed-screen paths; the risk bound extends over the KL oracle class when feasibility and separation hold throughout it.The theorem transfers oracle and resource guarantees before bounding output risk.Source: §F.3 · p. 76
- On successful paths, commits are singleton peels or safe centroid batches with zero total correlation; on failure, total correlation is at most N log V.The row-KL budget still applies on every path, including repair commits.Source: §F.3 · p. 76
- For the forward-KL case, setting the public radius to εKL/2 yields a per-row budget scaling as εKL/N, provided preprocessing is feasible and δ < ω.The finite guarantee also requires the specified failure-budget conditions.Source: §F.3 · p. 77
G From finite bounds to the main theorems
- The finite upper and lower bounds yield the main theorems with accuracy fixed before N grows, using εH = ε/2 for case (i) and εKL = ε²/2 for case (ii).The finite upper-bound design conditions and the calibrated lower-bound witness are checked before this passage to the main results.Source: G From finite bounds to the main… · p. 78, §G.2 · p. 78
G.1 A finite design condition
- With the stated constants and half-signal tail tolerance, preprocessing is feasible and the source-column count is bounded by order ω^-1/s.The finite design also establishes screen separation under its stated conditions.Source: §G.1 · p. 78
G.2 Finite lower-bound calibration for the main text
- Every admissible sampler must either use Q > floor(ω^-1/s)/8 submissions or R ≥ min{N/16384, Nω²/(786432ε)} commit rounds.The calibrated matching witness lies in the stipulated class, and the lower-bound alternatives follow from its submission and round budgets.Source: §G.2 · pp. 79–80
G.3 Fixed-accuracy specialization for the main text
The fixed-accuracy specialization gives sublinear balanced resource bounds and a query-or-round lower bound, then collects finite Hellinger and forest facts used in the proofs.
G.3 Fixed-accuracy specialization for the main text
- The specialization fixes s>1, ν>1/3, and public vocabulary V=N^(ν+o(1)), under the forest, RT-UEN, RF, and stated target–oracle calibration assumptions.Its accuracy parameter is fixed independently of N.Source: §G.3 · p. 80
- For fixed ε, balanced resources are eO(N^(2/3+1/(9s)) ε^(-2/(9s))); either counterfactual submissions or commit rounds require Ω(N^c ε^b), with c=1/(3s) and b=1/3.The lower bound is a coarser summary, not a matching lower bound for the upper rate.Source: §G.3 · p. 83
H Auxiliary results
- Appendix H collects deterministic finite algebraic and graph facts used by the construction, without introducing additional model assumptions.Source: H Auxiliary results · p. 83
H.1 Finite Hellinger-affinity calculus
- The finite affinity results relate product Hellinger distances to component distances and bound total variation using squared Hellinger distance.Source: §H.1 · p. 83
- KL-to-Hellinger comparison holds in either argument order, but strict positivity alone does not provide a converse upper KL bound without a uniform lower bound on masses.Source: §H.1 · p. 84
H.2 Elementary forest facts
- Deleting a suitable tree centroid leaves components of at most half the original size, supporting logarithmically many centroid layers.Source: §H.2 · p. 84
H.3 Public row-selector invariance
The proof guarantees are invariant to public row-selector choice under the stated selector contract, while the resource accounting distinguishes submissions from local computation and parallel depth.
H.3 Public row-selector invariance
- The selector must preserve exact rows of size at most d and cap every returned row at d; those properties support successful-path contraction and resource bounds.Source: §H.3 · p. 85
- Replacing the top-vote selector with any public selector in Definition D.3 preserves the stated resource and output guarantees, but does not bound local arithmetic or memory costs.The guarantee comparison does not assert that two selectors have identical realized paths or errors.Source: §H.3 · pp. 85–86
I Existing guarantees in the units of this paper
- Published row-query upper bounds convert to full-output submission upper bounds, though the conversion need not be tight; local arithmetic and vocabulary readout are excluded.Source: §I.1 · p. 86, I Existing guarantees in the units of… · p. 86
I.1 Submissions and parallel depth
- Once a candidate block and accepted history are available, the chain-rule conditional rows can be queried in parallel rather than through sequential prefix queries.Source: §I.1 · p. 86
I.2 One path with linear TC and DTC
This section presents a shared-class path construction with linear total, dual total, and effective total correlation, retaining the stated benchmark-class conditions as vocabulary and accuracy regimes grow. It also clarifies conventions for interpreting Table 1’s external comparisons.
I.2 One path with linear TC and DTC
- The shared-class path satisfies the stated regularity, response, and exact-oracle conditions, belongs to each main-text benchmark class eventually, and has TC(P) = Θ(N).Its edge signal lower bound depends only on p, not on N or vocabulary size; the construction uses two dependence-relevant types and independent within-type emissions.Source: §I.2 · pp. 87, 90
5. Dual total correlation. The chain rule and conditional Markov property give, respectively,
- Every interior term contributes the same positive constant to dual total correlation, so DTC(P) = Θ(N), and the path eventually belongs to the main benchmark classes.The conditional type variables are dependent for either conditioning type; the relevant constants depend only on p.Source: §5 · p. 91
I.3 Effective total correlation on the same path
- For the path law in Proposition I.1, effective total correlation satisfies Deff(P) = Θ(N), with constants depending only on s and not on vocabulary size.The supplied intuition lower-bounds contributions by isolating dependent interior-edge pairs when endpoints and their outer neighbors are revealed.Source: §I.3 · p. 92
- On the path, effective total correlation is linear in N: each of N−3 interior edges contributes positive conditional dependence, while DTC supplies the O_s(N) upper bound.Positive determinant of the type-transition matrix ensures positive conditional mutual information for each boundary-type pair; the mask weighting gives each edge a contribution of at least c_pair λ^4.Source: §I.3 · pp. 92–93
J Source locators and conventions for Table 1
- Table 1’s source notes distinguish randomized-output TV from mean KL/TV and clarify resource labels, conversion rules, and non-comparable oracle assumptions.Mean KL/TV is E_M D(P, Q_M), not D(P, E_M Q_M); “same” means submissions also bound depth, and uniform counterfactual-row error differs from an average under a data–mask or trajectory law.Source: J Source locators and conventions for… · p. 93
J.1 Distribution-general sampler rows
Appendix J contextualizes the sampler’s resource bounds against distribution-general and dependence-based guarantees, then clarifies the comparison’s assumptions and scope. Appendices K.1–K.2 specify the target families and empirical resource and accuracy measurements.
J.1 Distribution-general sampler rows
- Anari et al. (2024) use O(N) expected row queries and eO(N^2/3) expected depth for polynomial vocabulary; exact rows yield exact output.The comparison states uniform total-variation accuracy of normalized rows as the noisy-row condition.Source: §J.1 · pp. 93–94
J.2 Dependence-based schedule rows
- Li and Cai (2025) average predictor error over target data, random masks, and weighted time; their schedule rows do not imply uniform counterfactual-row accuracy.The appendix substitutes a path calculation and allocates a constant accuracy budget to training error.Source: §J.2 · p. 94
- Chen et al. (2026) bound schedule-averaged forward KL and update count using a supplied TC or DTC upper bound; both are Θ(N) on the cited path.The comparison uses exact rows and a constant-factor supplied bound.Source: §J.2 · p. 94
J.3 Supplementary citation map
- The appendix relates shared conditional-row probes, low-degree neighborhood recovery, peeling, and centroid scheduling to earlier design ideas without requiring full forest recovery.It distinguishes its conditional-row diameter tests and singleton commits from prior graph-coloring, Boolean-function recovery, and exact-degree peeling procedures.Source: §J.3 · pp. 94–95
J.4 Reading Table 1
- Table 1’s external entries are sufficient upper bounds, not lower bounds; the comparison fixes positive output tolerance and polynomial vocabulary.The cited path has TC(P) = DTC(P) = Θ(N), while the paper’s rows share resource power 2/3 + 1/(9s) < 1 for s > 1.Source: §J.4 · p. 95
K.1 Targets
- The target family uses a hidden forest and randomized unary fields; the sampler does not know the forest edges, and the conditional oracle is exact in the experiment.The evaluation tests N from 8192 through 16384.Source: §K.1 · pp. 95–96
K.2 Resources and accuracy
- Resource accounting charges each masked-state submission once, while the empirical batch-KL criterion measures product-to-joint KL along sampled histories rather than target-to-output risk.Passive evaluation adds no oracle rounds; nonenumerated factors use 128 Monte Carlo draws, and thresholds are fixed across sizes and methods.Source: §K.2 · p. 96
K.3 Sampling and evaluation
The sampling study selects proposal settings empirically and compares them with a random-batch baseline. Evaluation uses paired target draws and sampler streams, with per-run baseline budget searches.
K.3 Sampling and evaluation
- The proposal freezes the lowest-mean-submission candidate that passes development screening across six target-draw and sampler-stream pairs.Candidate settings vary color counts, degree cutoffs, and thresholds; all 120 fresh proposal evaluation runs have structural exact zero discrepancy, K = SEMC = 0.Source: §K.3 · p. 96
- The random baseline partitions a fixed random permutation into balanced batches and selects the first passing suffix, refining the unsafe–safe bracket to at most 0.05N.Its reported cost is the selected safe batch count and excludes search costs; the exact singleton endpoint is B = N.Source: §K.3 · p. 97
- Each reported point averages six runs from three target draws crossed with two sampler streams; the study ran on Apple-silicon and Linux hosts.The proposal/random study took about 64.7 minutes, and random budget searches took about 12.0 minutes total.Source: §K.3 · p. 97
Related papers
This paper cites
- Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations2020
- Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics2015
- Simple and Effective Masked Diffusion Language Models2024
- Your Absorbing Discrete Diffusion Secretly Models the Conditional Distributions of Clean Data2024
- A Continuous Time Framework for Discrete Denoising Models2022
- Provably adaptive sampling with uniform and remasking discrete diffusion models2026