Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 65 references

Efficient Fine-Tuning and Concept Suppression for Pruned Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 This paper claims that restoring and sanitizing a pruned diffusion model should be one joint optimization, not two sequential steps, and reports that the joint method removes artist styles more thoroughly while keeping generation quality.

desk verdict Useful empirical result on joint fine-tuning plus unlearning for pruned diffusion models, but the bilevel framing is not actually implemented in the algorithm. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15341 v2 pith:5YRRX4AC submitted 2024-12-19 cs.LG cs.CV

Reza Shirkavand , Peiran Yu , Shangqian Gao , Gowthami Somepalli , Tom Goldstein , Heng Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords diffusionmodelsmodelpruningknowledgedistillationconceptunlearningbileveloptimizationtext-to-imagegenerationsafeAIdeploymentstyleerasure
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

Pruned diffusion models are cheap to deploy, but the distillation step that restores their quality also carries over the original model's unwanted behaviors—copyrighted styles and unsafe content—even when those are absent from the fine-tuning data. This paper argues that the standard remedy of first fine-tuning the pruned model and then applying a separate concept-erasure method is suboptimal, because the parameters best for restoration are not the best starting point for forgetting. It proposes instead a single bilevel optimization in which a lower-level loop fine-tunes the pruned model with denoising and distillation losses while an upper-level loop applies concept unlearning. On Stable Diffusion 2.1 pruned to 80% MAC, the method reports lower style similarity, higher erasure scores, and better FID and retention CLIP than the two-stage baselines for removing Monet, Picasso, and Van Gogh, and comparable NSFW removal with better generation quality. If this holds, safe compressed diffusion models can be produced in one training pass rather than two.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the penalized minimax reformulation of the bilevel problem, Eq. (13)--(14): minimize over $\theta_{\mathrm{pruned}}$ the sum of the unlearning loss and $\lambda$ times the difference between the fine-tuning loss at $\theta_{\mathrm{pruned}}$ and the fine-tuning loss at an auxiliary variable $\vartheta$. The lower loop minimizes $L_{\mathrm{ft}}(\vartheta)$ for $K$ steps; the upper loop takes a gradient step on $G_\lambda$ with respect to $\theta_{\mathrm{pruned}}$. The paper justifies the reformulation by citing a first-order penalty method that relates stationary points of the penalized problem to those of the original bilevel problem. Concept unlearning itself is written as a distillation objective: minimize the squared error between the denoising prediction conditioned on an anchor concept $c'$ (from the frozen teacher) and the prediction conditioned on the target concept $c$ (from the model being unlearned), following the KL reformulation of concept removal.

What would settle it

Decisive ablation: run the exact algorithm of Sec. 4 and a control in which the inner-loop variable $\vartheta$ is detached from the outer step (equivalently $K = 0$), keeping everything else fixed; if the Table 1 metrics are statistically indistinguishable, the reported gains come from the weighted joint loss, not from the bilevel coupling. Sweeping $K$ from 1 to 50 and $\lambda$ from 0 to 100 would show which hyperparameter actually drives the effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that restoring a pruned diffusion model's generative quality and suppressing named concepts should be solved as one optimization, not two. Formally it writes the problem as a bilevel program: the lower level minimizes the fine-tuning loss $L_{\mathrm{ft}}$ (denoising plus output and feature distillation), and the upper level minimizes the concept-unlearning objective, with the constraint that the unlearned model's fine-tuning loss not exceed the infimum over all fine-tuning parameters. A penalty reformulation converts this to a minimax objective $G_\lambda$, solved by a double loop in which $K$ lower steps do standard fine-tuning and each upper step applies an ESD-style negative-guidance update. On an APTP-pruned Stable Diffusion 2.1 model at 80% MAC, the method reports CLIP similarity 26.28 versus 29.96 for the best two-stage baseline, CP score 97.6 versus 91.3, CSD 39.04 versus 53.19, FID 22.24 versus 27.86, and COCO CLIP 29.19 versus 28.94, and it also matches or beats two-stage pipelines on adversarial NSFW prompts while keeping lower FID.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the premise that the double-loop update genuinely couples the fine-tuning state with the unlearning step; if the outer gradient is independent of the inner-loop solution, the method is a weighted combination of two losses rather than a new two-level solver, and the comparison reduces to 'joint training beats sequential training.'

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Compressed diffusion models can be made safe in the same fine-tuning run that restores their quality, removing the need for a separate erasure stage.
  • Because the unlearning step is plug-in, swapping the upper-level method (for example, from an ESD-style update to a stronger unlearning method) should improve concept suppression while keeping the joint-training advantage.
  • The quantified distillation results imply that any pruned model retrained with knowledge distillation should be checked for transfer of undesired concepts, since the distillation objective itself carries style information from the teacher.
  • In NSFW settings, the method gives a better quality-safety trade-off than two-stage erasure: comparable or better removal on I2P, MMA, and Ring-A-Bell prompts with lower FID and higher COCO CLIP.
  • The resulting checkpoint remains compatible with further unlearning, so multiple concepts can be removed incrementally.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A careful reading of Algorithm 1 suggests the outer update is a weighted sum of the unlearning loss and the fine-tuning loss, with no term depending on the inner-loop variable $\vartheta$; if so, the practical contribution is that simultaneous weighted training outperforms sequential training, independent of whether the bilevel equivalence is doing the work.
  • The same joint fine-tune-and-unlearn recipe could be tested on unpruned or fully quantized diffusion models, where sequential safety fine-tuning is currently standard.
  • The evaluation protocol used here—CLIP similarity, CP, CSD, FID, and COCO CLIP together—could serve as a benchmark for compressed-model safety, since it separates concept removal from generation-quality retention.
  • Because the unlearning objective is itself a distillation toward an anchor concept, the bilevel framing may extend to other distillation-based behavior control tasks, such as aligning student models to a safe teacher during compression.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of fine-tuning pruned text-to-image diffusion models while suppressing unwanted concepts (e.g., artist styles, NSFW content). The authors propose a "bilevel" optimization framework that jointly performs distillation-based fine-tuning and concept unlearning, claiming to resolve the circular dependency between restoring generative quality and removing undesirable content. They evaluate the method on an APTP-pruned Stable Diffusion 2.1 model for artist style erasure and explicit content removal, reporting that their approach outperforms two-stage baselines (distillation followed by ESD, UCE, or ConceptPrune) in both concept suppression metrics and generation quality (FID, CLIP). The paper also quantifies the convergence benefit of adding distillation to pruned diffusion model fine-tuning.

Significance. If the empirical results hold, the paper makes a useful practical contribution: it demonstrates that jointly optimizing fine-tuning and forgetting objectives can be more effective than a sequential fine-then-forget pipeline for pruned diffusion models. The distillation convergence study in Sec. 5.1 is also a valuable addition. However, the central methodological claim of a genuinely interdependent bilevel solver is not supported by the algorithm as written; as implemented, the method reduces to a weighted multi-task objective. The lack of error bars and hyperparameter ablations further weakens the empirical case. With a reframed contribution and stronger evaluation, the underlying observation about joint training would be a solid incremental result for the efficient-diffusion-model deployment community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eq. (14), Algorithm 1] The outer gradient with respect to θpruned is independent of the inner-loop variable ϑ. In Eq. (14), Gλ(θpruned, ϑ) contains the term λ[Lft(θpruned) − Lft(ϑ)], and the derivative of −λLft(ϑ) with respect to θpruned is zero. Consequently, the K lower-level iterations in Algorithm 1 (lines 3–6) do not affect the upper-level update (line 7), and the algorithm is equivalent to single-level gradient descent on the weighted sum of the unlearning loss and the fine-tuning loss Lft(θpruned). The statement in the last paragraph of Sec. 4 that the gradient is "influenced by both the upper-level and lower-level losses" is therefore inaccurate, and the claimed interdependence that distinguishes the bilevel approach from a two-stage method is not implemented. The penalized problem in Eq. (12) is a valid penalty reformulation of the constrained problem, but it is not a bilevel problem in the sense of Eq. (9); the cited convergence result (Theorem 2 of [35]) applies to the penalty approximation, not to this double-loop algorithm as a bilevel solver. The authors should either modify the algorithm to introduce a genuine coupling (e.g., a hypergradient that depends on the lower-level solution ϑ) or reframe the contribution as joint multi-task fine-tuning rather than bilevel optimization.
  2. [Sec. 5.2, Tables 1 and 2] All reported metrics are point estimates without error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds. The central empirical claim is that the proposed method outperforms two-stage baselines in concept suppression and generation quality. Without any measure of variance, it is impossible to assess whether differences such as the CSD score of 39.04 versus 53.19 in Table 1 are statistically meaningful. The authors should report means and standard deviations over at least three independent runs, or otherwise justify that the evaluation is deterministic and not sensitive to randomness in training or sampling.
  3. [Sec. 5.2.1 and Appendix C.1.3] The method introduces several hyperparameters (λ=100, K=20, upper learning rate 5e−6) that are fixed without a sensitivity study. Since the algorithm is effectively a weighted multi-task objective, the choice of λ directly trades off unlearning strength against fine-tuning fidelity and is likely to be dataset- and concept-dependent. An ablation over λ and K is needed to demonstrate that the reported gains are not an artifact of a single hand-tuned configuration. Additionally, the paper does not report how the total iteration budget is split between lower and upper steps in the comparison, which is important for interpreting the computational cost claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The paper uses "bilevel" and "double-loop" interchangeably, but the algorithm as implemented is not a bilevel method; please revise the terminology consistently (e.g., "joint multi-task fine-tuning") after addressing the major issue above.
  2. [Sec. 5.2.1] The typo "hiqh quality" should be corrected to "high quality".
  3. [References] Reference [4] is malformed ("Zhang et. al. To generate or not? ... ECCV, 2024") and appears to duplicate reference [59]; it should be completed or removed.
  4. [Appendix C.3, Table 5] In the prompt "The Three Dancers by Pablo Picass", the artist's name is missing the final "o"; it should read "Picasso".
  5. [Eq. (5)] The notation DKL(pθ(x|c′)∥pθCU(x|c)) mixes the anchor condition c′ and the target condition c in an unclear way; consider clarifying which conditional distributions are being compared to avoid confusion.
  6. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states that the bilevel method produces "the optimal solution θ*", but no optimality guarantee is established for the proposed algorithm; please soften this to "a solution obtained by the proposed joint method".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the empirical fine-tuning-versus-two-stage comparison is self-contained, the same-group citations (APTP, CSD) are not load-bearing, and the main concern about Algorithm 1 is a correctness/novelty gap rather than a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim—that jointly fine-tuning and unlearning a pruned diffusion model outperforms a two-stage distillation-then-forget pipeline—is not circular. The quantitative results in Tables 1-3 come from head-to-head comparisons against externally defined baselines (ESD, UCE, ConceptPrune) using externally computed metrics (CLIP, FID, CSD, ASR), and no evaluation number is manufactured from a parameter fitted to the test set. The same-group citations, APTP [12] for pruning and CSD [48] for style similarity, are used as off-the-shelf tools and are not the load-bearing justification for the proposed method. The most significant derivation-chain concern is that Algorithm 1's outer gradient in Eq. (14) is independent of the inner variable ϑ, so the K lower-level iterations do not influence the outer update and the implemented procedure reduces to single-level weighted-sum training on the unlearning loss plus λ times the fine-tuning loss. This is a real gap between the paper's 'bilevel interdependency' language and the implemented algorithm, and it weakens the novelty framing, but it is a correctness/overclaim issue rather than a circularity: the empirical comparison remains independently testable, and no prediction reduces by construction to a fitted input. Accordingly, the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger counts five hand-set hyperparameters and five assumptions. The most fragile assumption is that the penalized minimax reformulation converges to the intended bilevel solution under the practical choices in the paper; the implemented inner loop is independent of the outer gradient, making the actual method a weighted-sum objective.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda (penalty coefficient) = 100
    Balances fine-tuning loss against concept unlearning in Eq. (14); chosen by hand, no ablation shown.
  • K (inner lower-level iterations) = 20
    Number of fine-tuning steps between upper-level unlearning updates in Algorithm 1; chosen by hand.
  • zeta (upper learning rate) = 5e-6
    Learning rate for the unlearning update; chosen by hand and different from the ESD baseline's 1e-5.
  • lambda_OutKD = 2.0
    Weight on output distillation term in Eq. (8); used for both baselines and the proposed method.
  • lambda_FeatKD = 0.1
    Weight on feature distillation term in Eq. (8); used for both baselines and the proposed method.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The diffusion denoising objective Eq. (1) is the correct fine-tuning objective for restoring pruned model quality.
    Standard in the cited diffusion literature; the paper does not question it.
  • domain assumption Output and feature distillation losses Eq. (3)-(4) transfer both quality and undesirable concepts from teacher to student.
    Motivates the whole study and is supported by Figs. 1-2, but not formally proven.
  • domain assumption The concept unlearning objective Eq. (5)-(6) from prior work suppresses target concepts when used as an upper-level loss.
    The paper imports ESD's gradient step as the upper-level update and relies on its effectiveness.
  • ad hoc to paper The penalized minimax problem Eq. (13)-(14) converges to a solution of the bilevel problem (9), and the conditions of Theorem 2 in [35] hold for this nonconvex, stochastic diffusion setting with lambda=100.
    Invoked in Sec. 4 but not verified; the inner loop's independence from the upper gradient makes the practical connection unclear.
  • ad hoc to paper The fine-tuning and unlearning parameter sets may be treated as separate variables without losing the intended coupling.
    Algorithm 1 updates theta and theta independently; the claimed interdependency is not realized, so the algorithm is effectively a weighted-sum objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient Fine-Tuning and Concept Suppression for Pruned Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5YRRX4AC

@misc{pith2026241215341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient Fine-Tuning and Concept Suppression for Pruned Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5YRRX4AC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15341}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in diffusion generative models have yielded remarkable progress. While the quality of generated content continues to improve, these models have grown considerably in size and complexity. This increasing computational burden poses significant challenges, particularly in resource-constrained deployment scenarios such as mobile devices. The combination of model pruning and knowledge distillation has emerged as a promising solution to reduce computational demands while preserving generation quality. However, this technique inadvertently propagates undesirable behaviors, including the generation of copyrighted content and unsafe concepts, even when such instances are absent from the fine-tuning dataset. In this paper, we propose a novel bilevel optimization framework for pruned diffusion models that consolidates the fine-tuning and unlearning processes into a unified phase. Our approach maintains the principal advantages of distillation-namely, efficient convergence and style transfer capabilities-while selectively suppressing the generation of unwanted content. This plug-in framework is compatible with various pruning and concept unlearning methods, facilitating efficient, safe deployment of diffusion models in controlled environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of images generated in the styles of Claude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of generative quality and style adherence: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Why can a two-stage approach (fine-tuning followed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantitative results demonstrate the effectiveness of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Explicit Content Removal: The values represent the per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: More visual samples of our bilevel method(with ESD) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [35]

    First-order penalty methods for bilevel optimization

    Zhaosong Lu and Sanyou Mei. First-order penalty methods for bilevel optimization. SIAM J. Optim., 34(2):1937–1969,

    work page 1937

  2. [1]

    Nudenet: An ensemble of neural nets for nudity detection and censoring, 2020

    Praneeth Bedapudi. Nudenet: An ensemble of neural nets for nudity detection and censoring, 2020. 8

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Hospedales

    Ruchika Chavhan, Da Li, and Timothy M. Hospedales. Con- ceptprune: Concept editing in diffusion models via skilled neuron pruning. CoRR, abs/2405.19237, 2024. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 2

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    A survey on deep neural network pruning-taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations

    Hongrong Cheng, Miao Zhang, and Javen Qinfeng Shi. A survey on deep neural network pruning-taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations. CoRR, abs/2308.06767, 2023. 1, 3

    arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Zhang et. al. To generate or not? safety-driven unlearned diffusion models are still easy to ... ECCV, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  6. [5]

    Salun: Empowering machine unlearn- ing via gradient-based weight saliency in both image classi- fication and generation

    Chongyu Fan, Jiancheng Liu, Yihua Zhang, Eric Wong, Den- nis Wei, and Sijia Liu. Salun: Empowering machine unlearn- ing via gradient-based weight saliency in both image classi- fication and generation. In The Twelfth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2024, Vienna, Austria, May 7-11, 2024. OpenReview.net, 2024. 3

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Structural pruning for diffusion models, 2023

    Gongfan Fang, Xinyin Ma, and Xinchao Wang. Structural pruning for diffusion models, 2023. 1, 2, 4, 6

    work page 2023

  8. [7]

    Forward and reverse gradient-based hyper- parameter optimization

    Luca Franceschi, Michele Donini, Paolo Frasconi, and Mas- similiano Pontil. Forward and reverse gradient-based hyper- parameter optimization. In Proceedings of the 34th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Syd- ney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August, 2017. 4, 1

    work page 2017

Show all 65 references
  1. [8]

    Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning

    Luca Franceschi, Paolo Frasconi, Saverio Salzo, Riccardo Grazzi, and Massimiliano Pontil. Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning. InProceed- ings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, ICML 2018, Stockholmsm ¨assan, Stockholm...

    2018

  2. [9]

    Erasing concepts from diffusion models

    Rohit Gandikota, Joanna Materzynska, Jaden Fiotto- Kaufman, and David Bau. Erasing concepts from diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, pages 2426–2436. IEEE, 2023. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 3

    2023

  3. [10]

    Unified concept editing in dif- fusion models

    Rohit Gandikota, Hadas Orgad, Yonatan Belinkov, Joanna Materzynska, and David Bau. Unified concept editing in dif- fusion models. In IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applica- tions of Computer Vision, WACV 2024, Waikoloa, HI, USA, January 3-8, 2024, pages 5099–5108. IEEE, 2024. 2...

    2024

  4. [11]

    Mixture of efficient diffusion ex- perts through automatic interval and sub-network selection

    Alireza Ganjdanesh, Yan Kang, Yuchen Liu, Richard Zhang, Zhe Lin, and Heng Huang. Mixture of efficient diffusion ex- perts through automatic interval and sub-network selection. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 54–71. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [12]

    Not all prompts are made equal: Prompt-based pruning of text-to-image diffusion models

    Alireza Ganjdanesh, Reza Shirkavand, Shangqian Gao, and Heng Huang. Not all prompts are made equal: Prompt-based pruning of text-to-image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.12042, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Approximation methods for bilevel programming, 2018

    Saeed Ghadimi and Mengdi Wang. Approximation methods for bilevel programming, 2018. 4, 1

    2018

  7. [14]

    Jaddipal, Harish Prabhala, Sayak Paul, and Patrick von Platen

    Yatharth Gupta, Vishnu V . Jaddipal, Harish Prabhala, Sayak Paul, and Patrick von Platen. Progressive knowledge distil- lation of stable diffusion XL using layer level loss. CoRR, abs/2401.02677, 2024. 2, 6

    2024 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Selective amnesia: A continual learning approach to forgetting in deep generative models

    Alvin Heng and Harold Soh. Selective amnesia: A continual learning approach to forgetting in deep generative models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: An- nual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, ...

    2023

  9. [16]

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

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilib- rium. Advances in neural information processing systems , 30, 2017. 6, 7, 2

    2017

  10. [17]

    Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean

    Geoffrey E. Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. CoRR, abs/1503.02531, 2015. 1, 2, 3

    2015 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. CoRR, abs/2207.12598, 2022. 7, 2

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffu- sion probabilistic models, 2020. 1, 3

    2020

  13. [20]

    Receler: Reliable concept erasing of text-to-image dif- fusion models via lightweight erasers

    Chi-Pin Huang, Kai-Po Chang, Chung-Ting Tsai, Yung- Hsuan Lai, Fu-En Yang, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang. Receler: Reliable concept erasing of text-to-image dif- fusion models via lightweight erasers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17717, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, 2022

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, 2022. 3, 4

    2022

  15. [22]

    On architectural compression of text-to- image diffusion models

    Bo-Kyeong Kim, Hyoung-Kyu Song, Thibault Castells, and Shinkook Choi. On architectural compression of text-to- image diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2305.15798, 2023. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ablating con- cepts in text-to-image diffusion models

    Nupur Kumari, Bingliang Zhang, Sheng-Yu Wang, Eli Shechtman, Richard Zhang, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Ablating con- cepts in text-to-image diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023 , pages 22634–22645. IEEE,

    2023

  17. [24]

    Jeongyeol Kwon, Dohyun Kwon, Stephen Wright, and Robert D. Nowak. A fully first-order method for stochastic bilevel optimization. In International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pages 18083–18113. PMLR, 2023. 4, 1

    2023

  18. [25]

    KOALA: self-attention mat- ters in knowledge distillation of latent diffusion models for memory-efficient and fast image synthesis

    Youngwan Lee, Kwanyong Park, Yoorhim Cho, Yong-Ju Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. KOALA: self-attention mat- ters in knowledge distillation of latent diffusion models for memory-efficient and fast image synthesis. CoRR, abs/2312.04005, 2023. 2, 6

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Pruning filters for efficient convnets, 2017

    Hao Li, Asim Kadav, Igor Durdanovic, Hanan Samet, and Hans Peter Graf. Pruning filters for efficient convnets, 2017. 3

    2017

  20. [27]

    Q-diffusion: Quantizing diffusion models

    Xiuyu Li, Long Lian, Yijiang Liu, Huanrui Yang, Zhen Dong, Daniel Kang, Shanghang Zhang, and Kurt Keutzer. Q-diffusion: Quantizing diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2302.04304, 2023. 1

    2023 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Snap- 9 fusion: Text-to-image diffusion model on mobile devices within two seconds, 2023

    Yanyu Li, Huan Wang, Qing Jin, Ju Hu, Pavlo Chemerys, Yun Fu, Yanzhi Wang, Sergey Tulyakov, and Jian Ren. Snap- 9 fusion: Text-to-image diffusion model on mobile devices within two seconds, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  22. [29]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context, 2014

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Doll´ar, and C Lawrence Zitnick. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context, 2014. 2, 6

    2014

  23. [30]

    Bome! bilevel optimization made easy: A simple first- order approach

    Bo Liu, Mao Ye, Stephen Wright, Peter Stone, and Qiang Liu. Bome! bilevel optimization made easy: A simple first- order approach. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems 35: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orlea...

    2022

  24. [31]

    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 The Tenth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2022, Virtual Event, April 25-29, 2022. Open- Review.net, 2022. 2

    2022

  25. [32]

    Moreau envelope for nonconvex bi-level optimiza- tion: A single-loop and hessian-free solution strategy.CoRR, abs/2405.09927, 2024

    Risheng Liu, Zhu Liu, Wei Yao, Shangzhi Zeng, and Jin Zhang. Moreau envelope for nonconvex bi-level optimiza- tion: A single-loop and hessian-free solution strategy.CoRR, abs/2405.09927, 2024. 4, 1

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Zhili Liu, Kai Chen, Yifan Zhang, Jianhua Han, Lanqing Hong, Hang Xu, Zhenguo Li, Dit-Yan Yeung, and James T. Kwok. Geom-erasing: Geometry-driven removal of implicit concept in diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2310.05873, 2023. 3

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019. OpenReview.net, 2019. 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    Edit- ing implicit assumptions in text-to-image diffusion models

    Hadas Orgad, Bahjat Kawar, and Yonatan Belinkov. Edit- ing implicit assumptions in text-to-image diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2023, Paris, France, October 1-6, 2023, pages 7030–

    2023

  29. [37]

    SDXL: improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2024

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. SDXL: improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2024. 1

    2024

  30. [38]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, Gretchen Krueger, and Ilya Sutskever. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In Proceedings of th...

    2021

  31. [39]

    Red-teaming the stable diffusion safety filter

    Javier Rando, Daniel Paleka, David Lindner, Lennart Heim, and Florian Tram`er. Red-teaming the stable diffusion safety filter. CoRR, abs/2210.04610, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image syn- thesis with latent diffusion models, 2022. 1, 6, 7, 2

    2022

  33. [41]

    Fitnets: Hints for thin deep nets, 2015

    Adriana Romero, Nicolas Ballas, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Antoine Chassang, Carlo Gatta, and Yoshua Bengio. Fitnets: Hints for thin deep nets, 2015. 1, 2, 3

    2015

  34. [42]

    Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L. Denton, Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, Jonathan Ho, David J. Fleet, and Mohammad Norouzi. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with de...

    2022

  35. [43]

    Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappro- priate degeneration in diffusion models

    Patrick Schramowski, Manuel Brack, Bj ¨orn Deiseroth, and Kristian Kersting. Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inappro- priate degeneration in diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 22522–22531, 2023. 8

    2023

  36. [44]

    Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inap- propriate degeneration in diffusion models

    Patrick Schramowski, Manuel Brack, Bj ¨orn Deiseroth, and Kristian Kersting. Safe latent diffusion: Mitigating inap- propriate degeneration in diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 202...

    2023

  37. [45]

    On penalty-based bilevel gradi- ent descent method

    Han Shen and Tianyi Chen. On penalty-based bilevel gradi- ent descent method. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, pages 30992–31015. PMLR, 2023. 4, 1

    2023

  38. [46]

    Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric A. Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics, 2015. 1, 3

    2015

  39. [47]

    Diffusion art or digital forgery? investigating data replication in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Vasu Singla, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. Diffusion art or digital forgery? investigating data replication in diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2212.03860, 2022. 1

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Measuring style similarity in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Anubhav Gupta, Kamal Gupta, Shra- may Palta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, Abhinav Shri- vastava, and Tom Goldstein. Measuring style similarity in diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2404.01292, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Generative modeling by es- timating gradients of the data distribution, 2019

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by es- timating gradients of the data distribution, 2019. 1

    2019

  42. [50]

    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 equa- tions. CoRR, abs/2011.13456, 2020. 1, 3

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Yu-Lin Tsai, Chia-Yi Hsu, Chulin Xie, Chih-Hsun Lin, Jia- You Chen, Bo Li, Pin-Yu Chen, Chia-Mu Yu, and Chun-Ying Huang. Ring-a-bell! how reliable are concept removal meth- ods for diffusion models? In The Twelfth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, ICLR 20...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Erasediff: Erasing data influence in diffusion models

    Jing Wu, Trung Le, Munawar Hayat, and Mehrtash Harandi. Erasediff: Erasing data influence in diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2401.05779, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Pruning for robust concept erasing in diffusion models

    Tianyun Yang, Juan Cao, and Chang Xu. Pruning for robust concept erasing in diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2405.16534,

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Diffusion probabilistic model made slim, 2023

    Xingyi Yang, Daquan Zhou, Jiashi Feng, and Xinchao Wang. Diffusion probabilistic model made slim, 2023. 1, 2

    2023

  47. [55]

    Mma-diffusion: Multimodal attack 10 on diffusion models

    Yijun Yang, Ruiyuan Gao, Xiaosen Wang, Tsung-Yi Ho, Nan Xu, and Qiang Xu. Mma-diffusion: Multimodal attack 10 on diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2024, Seattle, WA, USA, June 16-22, 2024, pages 7737–7746. IEEE, 2024. 8

    2024

  48. [56]

    Laptop-diff: Layer pruning and normal- ized distillation for compressing diffusion models

    Dingkun Zhang, Sijia Li, Chen Chen, Qingsong Xie, and Haonan Lu. Laptop-diff: Layer pruning and normal- ized distillation for compressing diffusion models. CoRR, abs/2404.11098, 2024. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Forget-me-not: Learning to forget in text-to-image diffusion models, 2024

    Gong Zhang, Kai Wang, Xingqian Xu, Zhangyang Wang, and Humphrey Shi. Forget-me-not: Learning to forget in text-to-image diffusion models, 2024. 2

    2024

  50. [58]

    Defensive unlearning with adversarial training for robust concept erasure in diffusion models

    Yimeng Zhang, Xin Chen, Jinghan Jia, Yihua Zhang, Chongyu Fan, Jiancheng Liu, Mingyi Hong, Ke Ding, and Sijia Liu. Defensive unlearning with adversarial training for robust concept erasure in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.15234, 2024. 1, 3

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    To gen- erate or not? safety-driven unlearned diffusion models are still easy to generate unsafe images

    Yimeng Zhang, Jinghan Jia, Xin Chen, Aochuan Chen, Yi- hua Zhang, Jiancheng Liu, Ke Ding, and Sijia Liu. To gen- erate or not? safety-driven unlearned diffusion models are still easy to generate unsafe images ... for now. In Com- puter Vision - ECCV 2024 - 18th European Confer...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Separable multi-concept erasure from dif- fusion models

    Mengnan Zhao, Lihe Zhang, Tianhang Zheng, Yuqiu Kong, and Baocai Yin. Separable multi-concept erasure from dif- fusion models. CoRR, abs/2402.05947, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Mobilediffusion: Subsecond text-to-image generation on mobile devices

    Yang Zhao, Yanwu Xu, Zhisheng Xiao, and Tingbo Hou. Mobilediffusion: Subsecond text-to-image generation on mobile devices. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16567, 2023. 1, 2 11 Efficient Fine-Tuning and Concept Suppression for Pruned Diffusion Models Supplementary Material A. Details...

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Prompt Encoder: Encodes input prompts into semanti- cally meaningful embeddings using a pretrained frozen Sentence Transformer model

  55. [63]

    Architecture Predictor: Transforms the encoded prompt embeddings into architecture embeddings, bridging the gap between prompt semantics and the required archi- tectural configuration

  56. [64]

    To prevent all codes from collapsing into a single one, the router module employs optimal transport during the pruning phase

    Router Module: Maps the architecture embeddings to specific architecture codes. To prevent all codes from collapsing into a single one, the router module employs optimal transport during the pruning phase. The optimal transport problem aims to find an assignment matrix Q that ...

    2017

  57. [65]

    Figure Prompts Samples in Fig

    and generation quality on COCO-Val-2017 C.3. Figure Prompts Samples in Fig. 1 are generated by the prompts in Tab. 4. The prompts used for Fig. 2 are presented in Tab. 5. Tab. 6 shows the prompts for generating the samples inf Fig. 6. Prompts The Artist’s House at Argenteuil b...

    2017

Pith tools

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