Abstract
Diffusion language models generate by iteratively denoising a masked sequence under bidirectional attention, without the strict left-to-right commitment of autoregressive decoding. Whether this difference affects how reliably they remain grounded in structured inputs is largely unexplored. We study this question in table-to-text generation using ToTTo, where highlighted source cells make factual grounding directly testable. We compare the masked diffusion models MDLM and LLaDA with GPT-2 and GPT-Neo under an identical retrieval-based few-shot protocol, together with a QLoRA-adapted LLaDA, and we score reference similarity and source grounding as separate axes. The two pull apart. Within LLaDA, additional demonstrations raise BLEU from 11.3 to 22.0 while NLI entailment against the source table falls from 0.78 to 0.52; QLoRA reaches the best BLEU of the study, 24.15, and grounds no better for it. Manual annotation shows the failure modes differ in kind: the autoregressive baselines tend to wander off the table, while LLaDA-based models more often stay on topic and swap out individual entities. Reference-based metrics alone are insufficient to assess faithfulness in table-to-text generation.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29602
