Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 59 references

This paper argues that a single-step IMLE generator trained with per-stage supervision and a robust loss can match iterative diffusion models, reaching FID 2.56 on ImageNet 256 in one forward pass.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review

2026-08-01 12:42 UTC pith:242DPSN6

load-bearing objection The training recipe is a genuine step forward for single-step IMLE; the headline ImageNet FID is filtered and should be reported as the unfiltered 4.16. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19332 v1 pith:242DPSN6 submitted 2026-07-21 cs.LG cs.CV

ROMS-IMLE: A Minimalist Approach to Competitive Single-Step Generative Modelling

Chirag Vashist , Ke Li This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CV
keywords single-step generationIMLEper-stage supervisionGeman-McClure lossspectral specializationdiffusion modelsFIDImageNet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper challenges the widespread belief that high-quality image generation requires transforming noise into data through many small iterative steps, as in diffusion and flow matching. The authors propose that the real drivers of success are two training-time properties: per-stage supervision and spectral specialization, where earlier stages learn coarse structure and later stages add fine detail. They adapt these properties to a single-step Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (IMLE) generator built from upsampling blocks, supervising each stage at its own resolution and using a robust Geman-McClure loss to down-weight mismatched nearest-neighbour pairs. The resulting model, ROMS-IMLE, generates in a single forward pass with no classifier-free guidance, reporting an FID of 2.56 on ImageNet 256 with 310M parameters and the best precision and recall among one-step baselines on CIFAR-10 and CelebA-HQ. If correct, this indicates that the complex machinery of iterative sampling is not necessary for competitive sample quality.

Core claim

The central claim is that the success of stochastic interpolant (diffusion/flow) models is due to per-stage supervision and spectral specialization, not to iteratively applying a denoising network. Under a 'testing-centric' view, a diffusion sampler is a composition of stages, each directly supervised at a particular noise level; the noising process acts like a progressive low-pass filter, so early stages handle low frequencies and later stages add high-frequency detail. The paper shows these properties transfer to a single-step IMLE generator by composing it from upsampling blocks, adding a per-stage output head, and supervising each stage against the real image downsampled to that stage's

What carries the argument

The key machinery is per-stage supervision on a compositional generator. The generator fθ is written as a composition of L upsampling blocks fθ1,...,fθL, each with its own output head; during training, the objective sums a robust loss between each stage's output and the real image downsampled to that stage's resolution by a low-pass kernel Kl. Because downsampling discards high frequencies, each stage is forced to reproduce only the content representable at its resolution, yielding coarse-to-fine generation analogous to diffusion's spectral progression. A Geman-McClure robust loss, applied only to the optimization step, reduces the influence of mismatched nearest-neighbour pairs. For latent-

Load-bearing premise

The headline FID of 2.56 assumes that rejecting roughly 5% of generated samples after an autoencoder round-trip is a legitimate part of a single-forward-pass evaluation; if that filter is considered an extra sampling step or its threshold is tuned on the test FID, the honest single-pass number is 4.16.

What would settle it

Report FID on all generated samples with no round-trip rejection and with the rejection threshold varied across a grid; if the unfiltered single-pass FID is not competitive with other one-step baselines, or if the reported 2.56 depends on test-set-specific threshold tuning, the central claim of a competitive single-step generator fails. A second check: train the same architecture and robust loss without per-stage supervision and observe whether precision/recall and FID on ImageNet 256 revert to vanilla-IMLE levels; a small gap would indicate per-stage supervision is not the driver.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If correct, competitive image generation can be done with one forward pass and no classifier-free guidance, cutting compute by roughly 250× in function evaluations compared to DiT-XL/2 and SiT-XL/2, with 54% fewer parameters.
  • The high precision and recall results (for example recall 0.80 on CIFAR-10 versus 0.60 for the next-best baseline) suggest single-step IMLE does not exhibit the mode collapse typical of GANs and can cover the data distribution better than a 100-step diffusion sampler.
  • Per-stage supervision is a training-time change that leaves the inference architecture untouched, so the recipe could be lifted onto other single-step generators without altering their forward pass.
  • Round-trip rejection provides a guidance-free way to trade diversity for fidelity in latent-space generation, giving users a dial analogous to classifier-free guidance or truncation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the reported ImageNet FID of 2.56 is computed only on the ~95% of samples that survive the round-trip filter; the unfiltered single-forward-pass FID is 4.16, so the headline number measures the model plus a rejection step, not the model alone.
  • If per-stage supervision is the operative mechanism, then other single-step frameworks—GANs, consistency models, shortcut flow models—might improve by adding stage-wise targets at increasing resolutions without changing their inference path.
  • The robust-loss fix generalizes beyond IMLE: any objective that matches generated samples to targets via nearest-neighbour search will produce outlier pairs, and sub-quadratic losses may be broadly useful for non-parametric matching in latent or policy spaces.
  • A direct test of the spectral specialization explanation would be to measure the frequency content of intermediate stage outputs; if earlier stages do not actually contain lower frequencies than later stages, the explanation would need revision even if the method works.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ROMS-IMLE, a single-step generative model built on Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (IMLE). The method trains a ConvNeXt-style generator with two modifications: per-stage supervision at each upsampling resolution (motivated by a 'testing-centric view' of diffusion/flow models as compositions of supervised stages) and a robust Geman-McClure loss to downweight mismatched nearest-neighbor pairs. The authors report strong results on CIFAR-10, CelebA-HQ, and ImageNet 256, with a headline FID of 2.56 on ImageNet 256 in a single forward pass, competitive with multi-step diffusion baselines at lower parameter counts.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant contribution: it challenges the prevailing view that iterative denoising is essential for high-quality generation, and it demonstrates that a moderately sized single-step ConvNet can rival much larger iterative models on ImageNet 256. The paper's core ablations (Table 1) are genuinely comparative and clearly show the benefit of per-stage supervision and robust losses. A notable strength is that the authors also report the unfiltered ImageNet FID (4.16 in Table 4), which is still competitive with several one-step baselines. However, the abstract and headline emphasize the filtered FID (2.56), which is computed after round-trip rejection that removes ~5% of samples; this metric does not represent the model's unconditional single-forward-pass performance and is not comparable to the baselines as reported. The reproducibility of the method is also limited by unspecified hyperparameters (rejection threshold, Geman-McClure scale, number of stages).

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / §3.6 / §4.1 / Table 4 / Appendix B] The headline claim 'achieves an FID of 2.56 in a single forward pass' is based on round-trip rejection. Appendix B states: 'Reported ImageNet metrics are computed on samples that pass this filter' and the filter 'removes roughly 5% of generated samples' with a threshold that is not specified. Thus FID 2.56 is not the unconditional single-forward-pass FID; the unfiltered value in Table 4 is 4.16. Moreover, the precision/recall for the rejected row are also computed on the filtered set, so the comparison to baselines in Table 4 is inequitable. The threshold must be specified, the rejection fraction must be disclosed in the main text, and the unfiltered metrics should be the primary result or at least reported alongside the filtered ones. Without this, the abstract overstates the model's unconditional performance.
  2. [Table 4 / §3.6] Labeling 'Ours (Latent-based) + Round-trip rejection' as NFE=1 is misleading. Round-trip rejection requires, per generated sample, one decode pass (latent to image), one encode pass (image to latent), and a second decode pass, plus an LPIPS distance computation. Even if NFE counts only passes through the generative network, the total computational cost of the sampling procedure is substantially higher than one forward pass. The paper should either count these extra autoencoder evaluations in the reported NFE or explicitly state that the NFE column excludes rejection overhead and provide the actual per-sample compute cost.
  3. [Appendix B / Algorithm 1] Several hyperparameters central to the method are not specified, limiting reproducibility: the Geman-McClure loss scale parameter, the number of stages L and per-stage resolutions, and the exact form of the per-stage losses (the pixel-space models combine LPIPS, DINO, and pixel losses with weights 1.0, 1.0, 0.1, but the robust loss wrapping is not fully defined). In particular, the robust loss scale can have a strong effect on training; without reporting it, the Table 1 ablation and the final ImageNet result are difficult to verify or build upon.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase '250× fewer function evaluations' is based on NFE=1 vs. 250 for DiT-XL/2 and SiT-XL/2, but this does not account for the extra autoencoder passes in the rejected pipeline. Consider clarifying that this count excludes rejection overhead.
  2. [§4.1 / Table 2] The text says the CIFAR-10 FID is 'competitive with the strongest one-step baselines' while Table 2 shows StyleFormer with FID 2.88 versus 4.01 for the proposed method. Since FID is central to the paper's claims, explicitly acknowledge this gap and explain why the precision/recall advantages are more important.
  3. [§3.2 / Eq. (2)] In the testing-centric view, the functions g_t are different evaluations of the same shared denoising network with a time embedding, not distinct parameter sets. The paper treats them as separate compositional stages without clarifying how weight-sharing fits the 'compositional model' analogy. This does not affect the empirical results but would benefit from a note.
  4. [§5 (Limitations)] The limitations section is very brief. It should mention the additional training cost of nearest-neighbor search with m=5n candidate latents (which is a significant practical overhead for large datasets) and the fact that the rejection filter is an inference-time component whose behavior depends on the autoencoder.
  5. [General] The paper does not mention a plan to release code or trained models, which would be important for reproducibility given the number of unexplained implementation details.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Headline ImageNet FID 2.56 is a filtered statistic: the rejection threshold is selected to improve FID, and the unfiltered single-step FID is 4.16.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix B (Architecture and training details), Table 4, Abstract]
    "We reject samples whose cost exceeds a fixed threshold, which removes roughly 5% of generated samples. We find that removing these samples improves FID. Reported ImageNet metrics are computed on samples that pass this filter."

    The paper's headline claim, 'achieves an FID of 2.56 on ImageNet 256', is not a property of the single-step generator's unconditional output. The number is computed after a round-trip rejection filter whose threshold is a free parameter; the text admits the filter was selected because removing those samples 'improves FID'. The unfiltered FID reported in Table 4 is 4.16, so 2.56 is the FID of a filtered subset, not a prediction of the model's true single-forward-pass behavior. By construction, the reported metric is a function of a filter chosen with knowledge of the metric, making the headline result statistically dependent on the evaluation criterion rather than an independent measure of the model.

full rationale

The training method itself is not circular: per-stage supervision directly supervises each resolution with downsampled real images, the robust loss is ablated fairly, and the IMLE objective is used as a well-defined training loss. The ablations in Table 1 and comparisons in Tables 2-4 are genuine empirical contributions. The only circularity is in the evaluation of the central ImageNet claim: the reported 2.56 FID is computed on samples that pass a rejection filter whose threshold is unspecified and was evidently chosen because it improves FID. The paper's own Table 4 gives 4.16 as the model's FID without this filter, so the abstract's headline number is a selected statistic rather than the model's unconditional single-step FID. Because the central quantitative claim is thus a filtered/fitted evaluation outcome, the circularity score is 4; the methodological core retains independent content, so a higher score would be disproportionate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The training recipe is an empirical combination; the free parameters are either unreported or hand-tuned, and the explanatory framework rests on an analogy between diffusion time steps and upsampling resolutions.

free parameters (5)
  • Round-trip rejection threshold = not reported (~5% of samples rejected)
    Controls which ImageNet samples are scored; chosen so that FID improves from 4.16 to 2.56. Not specified beyond 'fixed threshold'.
  • Geman-McClure scale parameter(s) = not reported
    Controls the robust loss shape; not stated in Algorithm 1 or Appendix B, despite being central to the training objective.
  • Pixel-space loss weights (LPIPS, DINO, pixel) = 1.0, 1.0, 0.1
    Hand-chosen weights for the pixel-space models; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Number of stages L and per-stage resolutions = not enumerated
    The compositional scaffold definition depends on L; values are not listed per dataset.
  • Latent candidate multiplier m=5n = 5x dataset size
    Set uniformly across datasets; affects nearest-neighbor matching quality.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption IMLE objective (Eq. 1) implicitly maximizes likelihood
    Taken from previous IMLE papers [34,2]; the paper does not prove this equivalence.
  • domain assumption Diffusion noising behaves as a progressive low-pass filter
    Used to justify spectral specialization transfer; supported by Figure 3 and a blog post [14], not by a theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper A deterministic sampler unrolled over time is equivalent to a single compositional model (Eq. 2)
    This 'testing-centric view' is a re-framing that licenses transferring per-stage supervision to upsampling stages; it is an analogy, not a proven equivalence.
  • domain assumption Downsampling with K_l provides the correct per-stage supervision target
    Relies on bicubic low-pass filtering; the claim that this reproduces diffusion-like spectral specialization is assumed.
  • standard math Geman-McClure loss down-weights mismatched pairs without biasing the estimate
    Classical robust statistics; the application to IMLE's dynamic matching is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption EQ-VAE latent space is a faithful representation for generation and round-trip filtering
    The frozen EQ-VAE [30] is treated as ground truth for both training and the rejection filter.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ROMS-IMLE: A Minimalist Approach to Competitive Single-Step Generative Modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/242DPSN6

@misc{pith2026260719332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ROMS-IMLE: A Minimalist Approach to Competitive Single-Step Generative Modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/242DPSN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19332}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Generative models have undergone many generations of evolution, from VAEs/GANs to diffusion/flow matching. Along the way, the underlying techniques have become more complicated and various beliefs about what drives strong empirical performance have taken hold. Due to the success of diffusion models and flow matching, one of the more common beliefs is the importance of transforming the noise distribution to the data distribution gradually through many small transformations. We ask whether this is truly necessary, and take a minimalist approach to designing a competitive generative model. We start with the bare-bones essentials, namely just a training objective and a model. We purposefully make both simple. For the training objective, we choose Implicit Maximum Likelihood Estimation (IMLE), and eschew more complicated alternatives such as variational inference, adversarial training and numerical integration. For the model, we eschew transformers and instead choose a moderately sized convolutional network. Then we judiciously added elements that are truly essential, which surprisingly do not include iterative denoising. The result is a single-step parameter-efficient generative model that produces high quality samples at fast speed: it achieves an FID of 2.56 on ImageNet 256 and simultaneously attains good precision and recall.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19332 by Chirag Vashist, Ke Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Random samples from our class-conditional model trained on ImageNet [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Per-stage supervision: Each row is a generator drawn as a composition of stages; blue arrows are the inference path and red dotted arrows show where the loss is applied. Vanilla IMLE (top) supervises only its final stage, whereas diffusion (middle) supervises every denoising stage. Our proposed method (bottom) retains IMLE’s architecture and one-step inference while extending direct supervision to every st… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The noising process in diffusion methods behaves like a progressive low-pass filter. Top row: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative ablation: Random samples from IMLE models trained on Oxford Flowers (256×256) for selected configurations in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Mismatch in nearest-neighbour pairing. Ground-truth image (top) and its nearest neighbours among generated samples in the current round (middle) and the previous round (bottom). For most images, both are close to the ground truth. For the highlighted image, the current-round nearest neighbour does not resemble the ground truth. 3.5 Robust Loss for Mismatched Pairs SI models interpolate between the noise di… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Random samples from our unconditional model trained on CelebA-HQ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Latent space interpolation for CelebA-HQ. We observe that the output images change smoothly in a meaningful manner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Random samples from our unconditional model trained on CIFAR-10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) Network architecture, which comprises a mapping network, upsampling layers and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Statistics of natural image categories.Network: Com- putation in Neural Systems, 14(3):391, may 2003

    Antonio Torralba and Aude Oliva . Statistics of natural image categories.Network: Com- putation in Neural Systems, 14(3):391, may 2003. doi: 10.1088/0954-898X/14/3/302. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-898X/14/3/302

    doi:10.1088/0954-898x/14/3/302 2003

  2. [2]

    Adaptive IMLE for few-shot pretraining- free generative modelling

    Mehran Aghabozorgi, Shichong Peng, and Ke Li. Adaptive IMLE for few-shot pretraining- free generative modelling. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors,Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, page...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Discrete cosine transform.IEEE transactions on Computers, 100(1):90–93, 2006

    Nasir Ahmed, T_ Natarajan, and Kamisetty R Rao. Discrete cosine transform.IEEE transactions on Computers, 100(1):90–93, 2006

    2006

  4. [4]

    Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden

    Michael S. Albergo and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Towards principled methods for training generative adver- sarial networks, 2017

    Martin Arjovsky and Léon Bottou. Towards principled methods for training generative adver- sarial networks, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1701.04862

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Wasserstein gan, 2017

    Martin Arjovsky, Soumith Chintala, and Léon Bottou. Wasserstein gan, 2017. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1701.07875

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Multimodal shape completion via imle, 2021

    Himanshu Arora, Saurabh Mishra, Shichong Peng, Ke Li, and Ali Mahdavi-Amiri. Multimodal shape completion via imle, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2106.16237

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    A general and adaptive robust loss function

    Jonathan T Barron. A general and adaptive robust loss function. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4331–4339, 2019

    2019

  9. [9]

    Seeing what a gan cannot generate, 2019

    David Bau, Jun-Yan Zhu, Jonas Wulff, William Peebles, Hendrik Strobelt, Bolei Zhou, and Antonio Torralba. Seeing what a gan cannot generate, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1910.11626

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis

    Andrew Brock, Jeff Donahue, and Karen Simonyan. Large scale GAN training for high fidelity natural image synthesis. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=B1xsqj09Fm

    2019

  11. [11]

    Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers, 2021

    Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Hervé Jégou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14294

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database

    Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large- scale hierarchical image database. In2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255, 2009. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2009.5206848

    arXiv 2009

  13. [13]

    Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, 2021

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alex Nichol. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05233

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Diffusion is spectral autoregression, 2024

    Sander Dieleman. Diffusion is spectral autoregression, 2024. URL https://sander.ai/ 2024/09/02/spectral-autoregression.html

    2024

  15. [15]

    Combating mode collapse in gan training: An empirical analysis using hessian eigenvalues, 2020

    Ricard Durall, Avraam Chatzimichailidis, Peter Labus, and Janis Keuper. Combating mode collapse in gan training: An empirical analysis using hessian eigenvalues, 2020. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2012.09673

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    One step diffusion via shortcut models, 2024

    Kevin Frans, Danijar Hafner, Sergey Levine, and Pieter Abbeel. One step diffusion via shortcut models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12557

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Zico Kolter, and Kaiming He

    Zhengyang Geng, Mingyang Deng, Xingjian Bai, J. Zico Kolter, and Kaiming He. Mean flows for one-step generative modeling, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13447. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Improved mean flows: On the challenges of fastforward generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02012, 2025

    Zhengyang Geng, Yiyang Lu, Zongze Wu, Eli Shechtman, J Zico Kolter, and Kaiming He. Improved mean flows: On the challenges of fastforward generative models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.02012, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio

    Ian J. Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks, 2014. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [20]

    An undetectable watermark for generative image models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07369, 2024

    Sam Gunn, Xuandong Zhao, and Dawn Song. An undetectable watermark for generative image models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.07369, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

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

    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 equilibrium. InNIPS, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-free diffusion guidance, 2022. URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2207.12598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models, 2020. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2006.11239

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization, 2017

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization, 2017. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1703.06868

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Rethinking fid: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation,

    Sadeep Jayasumana, Srikumar Ramalingam, Andreas Veit, Daniel Glasner, Ayan Chakrabarti, and Sanjiv Kumar. Rethinking fid: Towards a better evaluation metric for image generation,

  26. [26]

    Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation, 2018

    Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1710. 10196

    2018

  27. [27]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks, 2019

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks, 2019. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    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. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00364

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2022

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto-encoding variational bayes, 2022. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Eq-vae: Equivariance regularized latent space for improved generative image modeling, 2025

    Theodoros Kouzelis, Ioannis Kakogeorgiou, Spyros Gidaris, and Nikos Komodakis. Eq-vae: Equivariance regularized latent space for improved generative image modeling, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.09509

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

    Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. pages 32–33, 2009. URLhttps://www.cs.toronto.edu/~kriz/learning-features-2009-TR.pdf

    2009

  32. [32]

    Improved precision and recall metric for assessing generative models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Jaakko Lehtinen, and Timo Aila. Improved precision and recall metric for assessing generative models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  33. [33]

    Implicit maximum likelihood estimation for real-time generative model predictive control, 2026

    Grayson Lee, Minh Bui, Shuzi Zhou, Yankai Li, Mo Chen, and Ke Li. Implicit maximum likelihood estimation for real-time generative model predictive control, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2603.13733

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Implicit maximum likelihood estimation, 2018

    Ke Li and Jitendra Malik. Implicit maximum likelihood estimation, 2018. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1809.09087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling, 2023. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    A convnet for the 2020s, 2022

    Zhuang Liu, Hanzi Mao, Chao-Yuan Wu, Christoph Feichtenhofer, Trevor Darrell, and Saining Xie. A convnet for the 2020s, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03545. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization, 2019. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1711.05101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Sit: Exploring flow and diffusion-based generative models with scalable interpolant transformers

    Nanye Ma, Mark Goldstein, Michael S Albergo, Nicholas M Boffi, Eric Vanden-Eijnden, and Saining Xie. Sit: Exploring flow and diffusion-based generative models with scalable interpolant transformers. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 23–40. Springer, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Automated flower classification over a large number of classes

    Maria-Elena Nilsback and Andrew Zisserman. Automated flower classification over a large number of classes. InIndian Conference on Computer Vision, Graphics and Image Processing, Dec 2008

    2008

  40. [40]

    Styleformer: Transformer based generative adversarial networks with style vector, 2022

    Jeeseung Park and Younggeun Kim. Styleformer: Transformer based generative adversarial networks with style vector, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  42. [42]

    Imle policy: Fast and sample efficient visuomotor policy learning via implicit maximum likelihood estimation, 2025

    Krishan Rana, Robert Lee, David Pershouse, and Niko Suenderhauf. Imle policy: Fast and sample efficient visuomotor policy learning via implicit maximum likelihood estimation, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12371

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2022

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2112.10752

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models,

    Tim Salimans and Jonathan Ho. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models,

  45. [45]

    Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets, 2022

    Axel Sauer, Katja Schwarz, and Andreas Geiger. Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2022

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02502

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P. Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, 2021. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13456

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Consistency models, 2023

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.01469

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    D. J. Tolhurst, Y . Tadmor, and Tang Chao. Amplitude spectra of natural images.Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 12(2):229–232, April 1992. ISSN 1475-1313. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-1313. 1992.tb00296.x. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-1313.1992.tb00296.x

    arXiv 1992

  50. [50]

    Score-based generative modeling in latent space,

    Arash Vahdat, Karsten Kreis, and Jan Kautz. Score-based generative modeling in latent space,

  51. [51]

    Rejection sampling imle: Designing priors for better few-shot image synthesis, 2024

    Chirag Vashist, Shichong Peng, and Ke Li. Rejection sampling imle: Designing priors for better few-shot image synthesis, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2409.17439

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Gregory K. Wallace. The jpeg still picture compression standard.Commun. ACM, 34(4):30–44, April 1991. ISSN 0001-0782. doi: 10.1145/103085.103089. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/103085.103089

    arXiv 1991

  53. [53]

    Tackling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffusion gans, 2022

    Zhisheng Xiao, Karsten Kreis, and Arash Vahdat. Tackling the generative learning trilemma with denoising diffusion gans, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07804

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    Styleswin: Transformer-based gan for high-resolution image generation, 2022

    Bowen Zhang, Shuyang Gu, Bo Zhang, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, Fang Wen, Yong Wang, and Baining Guo. Styleswin: Transformer-based gan for high-resolution image generation, 2022. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2112.10762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric, 2018. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1801.03924. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Inductive moment matching

    Linqi Zhou, Stefano Ermon, and Jiaming Song. Inductive moment matching. InF orty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. 14 A Note on Maximum Likelihood Estimation Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) is widely used in generative modeling because it provides a principled method for fitting models to data by maximizing the likelihood that...

    2025

  57. [2021]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05931

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [2022]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2202.00512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  59. [2024]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.