Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Inference-Time Diffusion Model Distillation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single teacher-guided interpolation at the first sampling step improves few-step diffusion models without retraining or extra data.

desk verdict A simple, practical teacher-guided correction for few-step distilled T2I models, with a derivation that does not quite close; worth engaging on the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08871 v1 pith:6635U77T submitted 2024-12-12 cs.CV cs.AI

Geon Yeong Park , Sang Wan Lee , Jong Chul Ye This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords inference-timedistillationscoresamplingfew-stepdiffusionteacherguidanceconsistencymodelstext-to-imagegenerationDDIM
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

Distillation++ claims that the quality gap between few-step diffusion student models and their pre-trained teacher can be narrowed at inference time, with no retraining and no extra data. The paper recasts student sampling as a proximal optimization problem whose objective is a score distillation sampling (SDS) loss evaluated by the teacher, then shows that one gradient step reduces to a simple interpolation between the student's denoised estimate and a teacher-revised estimate. Applying this one-step correction at the first sampling step improves FID, ImageReward, and PickScore across LCM, LCM-LoRA, SDXL-Lightning, DMD2, and SDXL-Turbo. A sympathetic reader would care because the method is a drop-in post-training option that turns any few-step student into a better sampler at the cost of roughly one extra function evaluation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the interpolation identity of Eq. (9), derived from a proximal-optimization view of DDIM sampling with an SDS loss. It turns an intractable score-Jacobian gradient step into a convex combination of the student's clean estimate $\hat{x}^{\theta}_0(t)$ and the teacher-revised estimate $\hat{x}^{\psi}_0(s)$, with $\lambda$ as the guidance scale; the decreasing renoising schedule $s = t - \Delta t$ is what makes the teacher estimate a useful correction. This single identity carries the framework: once the denoised estimate is replaced by the interpolated one, any compatible solver (DDIM/Euler, Euler Ancestral, DPM-solver++ 2S/2M) can continue unchanged.

What would settle it

Run Distillation++ with a broken teacher, e.g., weights shuffled or evaluated at a wrong renoising time; if FID and ImageReward still improve, the gain does not come from teacher-guided manifold correction. A direct check is whether Eq. (9) reduces the SDS loss of Eq. (7) at the corrected point; if the loss does not drop, the interpolation is not making the student estimate more teacher-consistent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that an inference-time, tuning-free, data-free teacher correction, given by Eq. (9) as $\hat{x}^{\theta}_{\mathrm{new}}(t) = (1-\lambda)\hat{x}^{\theta}_{0}(t) + \lambda \hat{x}^{\psi}_{0}(s)$, consistently improves few-step student sampling. The correction is derived by minimizing an SDS loss with respect to the student's denoised estimate, using the pre-trained teacher as a critic; the gradient step is replaced by a fixed-point interpolation, and the teacher estimate is obtained by renoising the student estimate to a slightly earlier time $s = t - \Delta t$ and denoising with the teacher. The paper shows this one-step guidance improves visual fidelity and text alignment on MS-COCO 10K across five student model families and several ODE/SDE solvers, with the largest gains in the early sampling stages.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes the interpolated point between student and teacher estimates still lies on the clean-data manifold, so the next DDIM update is justified; this manifold property was established for standard diffusion samplers, not for distilled students whose early estimates can be far from the teacher's PF-ODE trajectory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single additional teacher evaluation at the first sampling step improves FID, ImageReward, and PickScore across LCM, LCM-LoRA, SDXL-Lightning, DMD2, and SDXL-Turbo, with the largest gains in early sampling stages.
  • The correction works without retraining or extra source data, making it a post-training option applicable to already-distilled student models.
  • The decreasing renoising schedule $s = t - \Delta t$, rather than a random timestep, is what makes the teacher guidance effective, as shown by the ablation on DMD2.
  • The framework generalizes to solvers beyond DDIM/Euler, including DPM-solver++ 2S Ancestral, by modulating the denoised estimate before the solver update.
  • The student and teacher must share a latent space for the interpolation to be valid, which the paper identifies as a limitation for cross-latent applications.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the correction is applied only at the first step, the framework implies the student's initial estimate is the main bottleneck; testing the same interpolation at later steps should yield smaller gains, which would confirm that early-step trajectory correction carries the effect.
  • The interpolation can be extended to convex combinations of multiple teacher revisions, as the paper notes; one could test whether averaging several teachers with different styles or noise levels improves robustness without extra tuning.
  • Since the method requires a shared latent space between student and teacher, a natural stress test is to apply Distillation++ across different latent autoencoders; if the interpolation breaks, the shared-space condition is indeed load-bearing.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Distillation++, an inference-time method that refines the intermediate denoised estimates of a few-step diffusion distillation student model by interpolating them with the corresponding teacher model's denoised estimates. The interpolation is motivated by a score distillation sampling (SDS) loss and is applied during the first few sampling steps. The authors evaluate the method on LCM, LCM-LoRA, SDXL-Lightning, DMD2, and SDXL-Turbo, reporting consistent improvements in FID, ImageReward, and PickScore with one additional teacher evaluation, and provide ablations on the renoising schedule and solver compatibility.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, Distillation++ is a simple and broadly applicable post-training booster for distilled diffusion models, with low overhead and no additional training data or fine-tuning. The paper includes a thorough empirical study across five student models, two solver families, and three metrics, plus wall-clock time measurements and a renoising-schedule ablation. The code release is a strength. However, the theoretical derivation connecting the interpolation update to SDS/proximal optimization has algebraic gaps and relies on a manifold assumption that is questionable for initial student estimates; the framework is best currently understood as a well-motivated heuristic. This does not invalidate the empirical contributions but weakens the claimed principled foundation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (7)-(9)] The claimed derivation of the interpolation update from the SDS loss is algebraically inconsistent. The gradient of ℓ_distill in Eq. (7) with respect to the denoised estimate x is 2α_s/(1−α_s)(x − xhat_ψ_0(s)). Substituting this into Eq. (8) yields a coefficient 2γ_t α_s/(1−α_s), not the stated λ = 2γ_t √α_t/√(1−α_t). The paper uses t instead of s in λ and gives no relation between γ_t and s that would reconcile the discrepancy. Because λ is subsequently treated as a free hyperparameter in Algorithm 1, the derivation does not actually establish that the implemented update is a gradient step on the SDS loss. Please correct the derivation, state the approximations explicitly, or reframe the update as a heuristic interpolation motivated by SDS.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (8)-(9)] The manifold-constrained justification borrowed from DDS/DreamSampler requires the point being updated to lie on the clean data manifold. At the initial step t = T (where the paper applies guidance, k=1), the student estimate xhat_θ_0(T) from a distilled model is typically far from the clean manifold, and the convex combination (1−λ)xhat_θ_0(t) + λ xhat_ψ_0(s) with small λ (0.02–0.1) remains close to the student's off-manifold estimate. The paper does not show that this interpolated point is a valid posterior-mean estimate, so the subsequent DDIM update may not be a justified transition on the noisy manifold. Please either add evidence that the interpolated estimates are approximately on-manifold (e.g., by measuring their distance to the teacher's clean estimates or their effect on the next-step likelihood) or qualify the theoretical claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1 and supplementary] There are several typos, including 'samplign' and 'inferece' in the text, and a note in the supplementary about fixing a typo in Eq. (11) that should be integrated into the main text.
  2. [§3.1, Eq. (10)] The approximation ¯α_t ≈ ¯α_s is invoked without noting that for s = t − Δt, the difference can be substantial near the initial steps; the paper should discuss the regime in which this approximation is valid.
  3. [Table 1] No error bars or multiple seeds are reported; since the improvements are modest, it is unclear whether the differences are statistically significant. Please add error bars or state that the numbers are from a single run.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The claim of being 'tuning-free' is imprecise: the method requires a tuned teacher guidance scale λ (λ=0.02 or 0.1 in the experiments). Clarify that 'tuning-free' means without fine-tuning, not without hyperparameters.
  5. [Table 1 and Fig. 1] The paper states that the teacher model alone with the same number of steps is inferior, but no quantitative teacher-only baseline is given in Table 1; consider adding such a row to support the synergy claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the teacher is a fixed external model, the evaluation metrics are external benchmarks, and the self-cited manifold results are prior independent support rather than definitions of the target claim.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation starts from the SDS loss in Eq. (7) and uses the DDS/DreamSampler manifold argument (Eq. (8), refs [3-5]) to convert a gradient update into the interpolation of Eq. (9). Although refs [3,4,5] are by the same research group, they are earlier, separately evaluated works that state general manifold conditions and do not assume the present result; their use is legitimate support rather than a circular premise. The teacher is a fixed pretrained SDXL model and the reported improvements are measured by FID, ImageReward, and PickScore on the external MS-COCO 10K benchmark, so the gains are not encoded by definition in the estimator. The hyperparameter lambda is a small tuned constant, but no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The skeptic's point that the coefficient in Eq. (9) does not literally match the gradient of Eq. (7) is a mathematical correctness concern, not an instance of the claim reducing to its own inputs by construction. Therefore no circular step is exhibited and the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests on three hand-chosen hyperparameters (lambda, k, and the renoising schedule) and four background assumptions. No new physical or architectural entities are introduced. The shared-latent-space requirement and the transfer of the DDS manifold analysis to distilled students are the most substantive assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Teacher guidance scale lambda = 0.02 for LCM, LCM-LoRA, DMD2; 0.1 for SDXL-Turbo, SDXL-Lightning, SDXL-Lightning LoRA
    Hand-set per student model in Supplementary Sec. 7.2; no sensitivity analysis or selection rule is given, and this value controls the strength of the teacher correction.
  • Number of teacher-guided steps k = 1
    Fixed for all quantitative results; the paper notes that more frequent guidance could improve quality, so k is a tuning choice rather than a derived quantity.
  • Renoising timestep schedule with s = t - Delta t = s = t - Delta t, where Delta t = T/N
    The ablation in Table 3 shows that s = t - Delta t outperforms random or s = t, so the schedule is chosen from data rather than derived from first principles.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Score matching and Tweedie's formula imply that the teacher's epsilon prediction gives a clean estimate x_hat_psi_0(s) (Eqs. 5 and 7).
    Used throughout Sec. 3.1 to define the SDS loss and the teacher estimate; this is a standard result from the diffusion model literature.
  • domain assumption Student and teacher models share a common latent space so their denoised estimates can be linearly interpolated.
    Eq. (9) interpolates x_hat_theta_0(t) and x_hat_psi_0(s); the paper itself lists shared latent space as a limitation in Section 9.
  • domain assumption The manifold-constrained transition property from DDS and DreamSampler applies to distilled student samplers.
    Eq. (8) relies on refs [3,4,5] to justify the proximal update; the paper does not prove that this transfers to off-trajectory estimates from few-step students.
  • domain assumption The teacher model provides a reliable refinement target at renoised timestep s for student estimates.
    The entire method assumes x_hat_psi_0(s) is closer to the clean manifold than x_hat_theta_0(t); this is plausible but unproven and could fail for out-of-distribution prompts or customized students.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inference-Time Diffusion Model Distillation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6635U77T

@misc{pith2026241208871,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inference-Time Diffusion Model Distillation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6635U77T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08871}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion distillation models effectively accelerate reverse sampling by compressing the process into fewer steps. However, these models still exhibit a performance gap compared to their pre-trained diffusion model counterparts, exacerbated by distribution shifts and accumulated errors during multi-step sampling. To address this, we introduce Distillation++, a novel inference-time distillation framework that reduces this gap by incorporating teacher-guided refinement during sampling. Inspired by recent advances in conditional sampling, our approach recasts student model sampling as a proximal optimization problem with a score distillation sampling loss (SDS). To this end, we integrate distillation optimization during reverse sampling, which can be viewed as teacher guidance that drives student sampling trajectory towards the clean manifold using pre-trained diffusion models. Thus, Distillation++ improves the denoising process in real-time without additional source data or fine-tuning. Distillation++ demonstrates substantial improvements over state-of-the-art distillation baselines, particularly in early sampling stages, positioning itself as a robust guided sampling process crafted for diffusion distillation models. Code: https://github.com/geonyeong-park/inference_distillation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08871 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Experiments comparing baselines (LCM-LoRA [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview. (a) Diffusion models (in blue) sample by solving the PF-ODE, requiring a computationally expensive integral from time T to 0. Student models (in black) accelerate sampling by approximating this integral, but their (initial) estimates are often suboptimal. (b) To bridge this gap post-training, we propose an inference-time distillation. Specifically, we refine the student models’ initial estimates by refinin… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparisons against state-of-the-art distillation baselines. Baselines using 4 sampling steps: SDXL-Lightning, DMD2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Results of baseline (LCM-LoRA) with varying number of sampling steps (4, 6, 7, 8). Increasing the number of sampling steps of student models does not guarantee improvements in textual alignment or physical feasibility. (b) Our improved results with inference-time d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Results of baseline (LCM) with 4 and 8 sampling steps. (b) Ours with 4 step sampling + 1 step distillation. 4.2. Evaluation and analysis Quantitative Analyses. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison on inference-time distillation using ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparisons between SDXL teacher model (8 steps) and ours. Our results are from the Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Qualitative comparisons against state-of-the-art distillation baselines. Baselines using 4 sampling steps: SDXL-Lightning, DMD2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Additional qualitative comparisons against state-of-the-art distillation baselines. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. RSTR: Reducing SpatioTemporal Redundancy in Diffusion Transformers

    cs.CV 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    OUSAC uses evolutionary search to skip most classifier-free-guidance passes and adaptive low-rank caching to recover quality, cutting diffusion transformer compute by about 50–60% with equal or better FID.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Reverse-time diffusion equation models

    Brian DO Anderson. Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12(3):313–326,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Tract: Denoising diffusion models with transitive closure time-distillation

    David Berthelot, Arnaud Autef, Jierui Lin, Dian Ang Yap, Shuangfei Zhai, Siyuan Hu, Daniel Zheng, Walter Talbott, and Eric Gu. Tract: Denoising diffusion models with transitive closure time-distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04248,

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael Thompson Mccann, Marc Louis Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 4

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Decom- posed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Suhyeon Lee, and Jong Chul Ye. Decom- posed diffusion sampler for accelerating large-scale inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.05754, 2023. 2, 4

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Cfg++: Manifold-constrained clas- sifier free guidance for diffusion models

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Geon Yeong Park, Hyelin Nam, and Jong Chul Ye. Cfg++: Manifold-constrained clas- sifier free guidance for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.08070, 2024. 2, 4, 5, 1

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Tweedie’s formula and selection bias

    Bradley Efron. Tweedie’s formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 106(496):1602–1614,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Scaling rectified flow trans- formers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim En- tezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling rectified flow trans- formers for high-resolution image synthesis. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024. 2

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    DDIL: Diversity Enhancing Diffusion Distillation With Imitation Learning

    Risheek Garrepalli, Shweta Mahajan, Munawar Hayat, and Fatih Porikli. Ddil: Improved diffusion distillation with imi- tation learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.11971, 2024. 2

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Consistency models made easy

    Zhengyang Geng, Ashwini Pokle, William Luo, Justin Lin, and J Zico Kolter. Consistency models made easy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14548, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Boot: Data-free distillation of denoising diffusion models with bootstrapping

    Jiatao Gu, Shuangfei Zhai, Yizhe Zhang, Lingjie Liu, and Joshua M Susskind. Boot: Data-free distillation of denoising diffusion models with bootstrapping. In ICML 2023 Work- shop on Structured Probabilistic Inference {\&} Generative Modeling, 2023. 3

    2023

  3. [11]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bern- hard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 7

    2017

  4. [12]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598, 2022. 3, 5

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Video diffusion models

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J Fleet. Video diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:8633–8646, 2022. 2

    2022

  6. [14]

    Gotta go fast when generating data with score-based models

    Alexia Jolicoeur-Martineau, Ke Li, Rémi Piché-Taillefer, Tal Kachman, and Ioannis Mitliagkas. Gotta go fast when generating data with score-based models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14080, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. In Proc. NeurIPS, 2022. 2, 3, 5, 1

    2022

  8. [16]

    Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion

    Dongjun Kim, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Naoki Mu- rata, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Yutong He, Yuki Mitsufuji, and Stefano Ermon. Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02279, 2023. 2

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dream- sampler: Unifying diffusion sampling and score distillation for image manipulation

    Jeongsol Kim, Geon Yeong Park, and Jong Chul Ye. Dream- sampler: Unifying diffusion sampling and score distillation for image manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11415,

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to-image generation

    Yuval Kirstain, Adam Polyak, Uriel Singer, Shahbuland Ma- tiana, Joe Penna, and Omer Levy. Pick-a-pic: An open dataset of user preferences for text-to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:36652–36663,

  11. [19]

    Magic3d: High-resolution text- to-3d content creation

    Chen-Hsuan Lin, Jun Gao, Luming Tang, Towaki Takikawa, Xiaohui Zeng, Xun Huang, Karsten Kreis, Sanja Fidler, Ming- Yu Liu, and Tsung-Yi Lin. Magic3d: High-resolution text- to-3d content creation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognit...

    2023

  12. [20]

    Animatediff-lightning: Cross- model diffusion distillation

    Shanchuan Lin and Xiao Yang. Animatediff-lightning: Cross- model diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12706,

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sdxl-lightning: Progressive adversarial diffusion distillation

    Shanchuan Lin, Anran Wang, and Xiao Yang. Sdxl-lightning: Progressive adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13929, 2024. 1, 2, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds

    Luping Liu, Yi Ren, Zhijie Lin, and Zhou Zhao. Pseudo numerical methods for diffusion models on manifolds. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 5

    2022

  15. [23]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022. 9

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and qiang liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 9

    2023

  17. [25]

    DPM-solver: A fast ODE solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. DPM-solver: A fast ODE solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. 3

    2022

  18. [26]

    Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01095, 2022. 2, 5, 7, 1

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Knowledge distillation in it- erative generative models for improved sampling speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02388, 2021

    Eric Luhman and Troy Luhman. Knowledge distillation in it- erative generative models for improved sampling speed.arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02388, 2021. 3

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378, 2023. 2, 4, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lcm-lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Suraj Patil, Daniel Gu, Patrick von Platen, Apolinário Passos, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Lcm-lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556, 2023. 1, 7, 8, 2

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Diff-instruct: A universal ap- proach for transferring knowledge from pre-trained diffusion models

    Weijian Luo, Tianyang Hu, Shifeng Zhang, Jiacheng Sun, Zhenguo Li, and Zhihua Zhang. Diff-instruct: A universal ap- proach for transferring knowledge from pre-trained diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 4

    2024

  23. [31]

    Dreamshaper xl v2.1 turbo dpm++ sde

    ID: LyKon. Dreamshaper xl v2.1 turbo dpm++ sde. https: //civitai.com/models/112902/dreamshaper-xl , 2024. Pretrained model released in CIVITAI. 7, 2

    2024

  24. [32]

    Swiftbrush: One-step text-to-image diffusion model with variational score distilla- tion

    Thuan Hoang Nguyen and Anh Tran. Swiftbrush: One-step text-to-image diffusion model with variational score distilla- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 7807–7816, 2024. 4

    2024

  25. [33]

    Energy-based cross attention for bayesian context update in text-to-image diffusion models

    Geon Yeong Park, Jeongsol Kim, Beomsu Kim, Sang Wan Lee, and Jong Chul Ye. Energy-based cross attention for bayesian context update in text-to-image diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. 7

    2024

  26. [34]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1, 5

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Movie gen: A cast of media foundation models

    Adam Polyak, Amit Zohar, Andrew Brown, Andros Tjandra, Animesh Sinha, Ann Lee, Apoorv Vyas, Bowen Shi, Chih- Yao Ma, Ching-Yao Chuang, et al. Movie gen: A cast of media foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13720,

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Barron, and Ben Mildenhall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Dreamfusion: Text-to-3d using 2d diffusion. arXiv, 2022. 2, 4, 8

    2022

  29. [37]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. In International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2022. 2, 7

    2022

  30. [38]

    Adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. Adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17042, 2023. 2, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fast high- resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, Tim Dockhorn, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser, and Robin Rombach. Fast high- resolution image synthesis with latent adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12015, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2021. 3, 1

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P. Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2021. 2, 5

    2021

  34. [42]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Representations ,

  35. [43]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 5

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion

    Vikram V oleti, Chun-Han Yao, Mark Boss, Adam Letts, David Pankratz, Dmitry Tochilkin, Christian Laforte, Robin Rombach, and Varun Jampani. Sv3d: Novel multi-view syn- thesis and 3d generation from a single image using latent video diffusion. In European Conference on Computer...

    2025

  37. [45]

    Consistent3d: Towards consistent high-fidelity text-to-3d generation with deterministic sampling prior

    Zike Wu, Pan Zhou, Xuanyu Yi, Xiaoding Yuan, and Han- wang Zhang. Consistent3d: Towards consistent high-fidelity text-to-3d generation with deterministic sampling prior. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition , pages 9892–9902, 2...

    2024

  38. [46]

    Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation

    Jiazheng Xu, Xiao Liu, Yuchen Wu, Yuxuan Tong, Qinkai Li, Ming Ding, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. Imagereward: Learning and evaluating human preferences for text-to-image generation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 36, 2024. 7

    2024

  39. [47]

    Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis

    Tianwei Yin, Michaël Gharbi, Taesung Park, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Fredo Durand, and William T Freeman. Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14867, 2024. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation

    Tianwei Yin, Michaël Gharbi, Richard Zhang, Eli Shecht- man, Fredo Durand, William T Freeman, and Taesung Park. One-step diffusion with distribution matching distillation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vi- sion and Pattern Recognition, pages 6613–6623, ...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Motion consistency model: Acceler- ating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation

    Yuanhao Zhai, Kevin Lin, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Jian- feng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, David Doermann, Junsong Yuan, and Lijuan Wang. Motion consistency model: Acceler- ating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06890, 2024. 2

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hifa: High- fidelity text-to-3d generation with advanced diffusion guid- ance

    Junzhe Zhu, Peiye Zhuang, and Sanmi Koyejo. Hifa: High- fidelity text-to-3d generation with advanced diffusion guid- ance. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 4, 8 Inference-Time Diffusion Model Distillation Supplementary Material The sup...

    2023

  43. [51]

    Code will be released in https://github.com/anony- distillationpp/distillation_pp

  44. [52]

    2: Output: Improved generation x∗ 0

    Pseudo-code Algorithm 1 Inference-time Diffusion model distillation 1: Input: Student model θ, Teacher model ψ, N sampling steps, k number of steps of teacher guidance, CFG scale ω, Teacher guidance scale λ. 2: Output: Improved generation x∗ 0. 3: 4: xT ∼ N(xT |0, I), △t = T /...

  45. [53]

    Extension to other solvers For completeness, we extend Distillation++ to accommo- date a broader range of ODE/SDE solvers

    Experimental details 7.1. Extension to other solvers For completeness, we extend Distillation++ to accommo- date a broader range of ODE/SDE solvers. The core prin- ciple lies in steering the denoising process with teacher models. Specifically, we consider solving the variance-...

  46. [54]

    8 and 9, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed inference-time distillation with various student models

    Additional results In Fig. 8 and 9, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed inference-time distillation with various student models. This advances stem from the guidance of teacher model, whereas the teacher model itself does not guaran- tee high-quality samples with ...

  47. [55]

    While computational efficiency is critical for modeling in these high-dimensional spaces, recent studies highlight the challenge of reducing inference steps for video generation

    Discussions and Limitations Beyond the image domain, diffusion models have become a cornerstone of high-dimensional visual generative modeling, including applications such as video generation [ 13] and multi-view synthesis [44]. While computational efficiency is critical for m...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.