Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes iGCT, a one-stage, data-driven training framework that gives consistency models guidance and one-step inversion without a pretrained diffusion teacher.

desk verdict Real empirical recipe for guidance in consistency training without distillation, but the theoretical justification of the guided direction is wrong and overclaims CFG-like behavior. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05391 v1 pith:RDW7LLTI submitted 2025-02-08 cs.CV

Chia-Hong Hsu , Shiu-hong Kao , Randall Balestriero This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords guidedconsistencytrainingmodelsclassifier-freeguidancediffusion-freegenerationone-stepinversionimageeditingCFGsaturationdistillation-free
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

The paper seeks to establish that guided image generation and inversion can be trained directly into consistency models from data, without the usual two-stage pipeline that first trains a diffusion model with classifier-free guidance and then distills it into a consistency model. Its method, Invertible Guided Consistency Training (iGCT), builds a guided consistency objective from two decoupled directions: the noise that produced a noisy source image is treated as the unconditional direction, and the direction from that noisy image to a randomly sampled target-class image is treated as the conditional direction. A single network is trained over a continuous range of guidance weights, and a second network, the noiser, learns one-step image-to-noise inversion with a reconstruction loss tying the two together. On CIFAR-10 and ImageNet64 the paper reports that iGCT achieves better FID and precision than CFG-guided diffusion models and distilled guided consistency models under high guidance, with precision 0.80 versus 0.47 at $w=13$ on CIFAR-10, while avoiding the high-contrast saturation artifacts of CFG. If correct, fast guided generation and editing become independent of diffusion-teacher availability, and better diffusion schedulers can be adopted without waiting for a matching pretrained teacher.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the pair of coupled consistency objectives. The guided consistency loss is $L_{\mathrm{gct}} = \lambda(t)\,d(D_\theta(x_t, t, c, w), D_{\theta^-}(x_r, r, c, w))$, where $x_r$ is built from the extrapolated direction $w z^* + (1-w)z$ and the guidance weight $w$ is sampled uniformly from $[1,15]$ and fed into the network as an embedding. The inverse consistency loss is $L_{\mathrm{inv}} = \lambda'(t)\,d(N_\phi(x_r, r, c), N_{\phi^-}(x_t, t, c))$, which trains the noiser to reverse the denoising map; its preconditioning $c_{\mathrm{skip}}(t)=1$, $c_{\mathrm{out}}(t)=t_{\max}-t$ is shown to give the effective target unit variance. The reconstruction loss couples the two networks and stabilizes the noiser. Together these losses turn the consistency-model objective into a trainable, invertible, guidance-conditioned map instead of a distillation target.

What would settle it

Train the iGCT objective on a 1D or 2D mixture of two classes with known conditional distributions, and compare the learned one-step map $D_\theta(x_t,t,c,w)$ with the true conditional posterior mean $\mathbb{E}[x_0\mid x_t,c]$ and with the class-mean direction $\mathbb{E}[x_0\mid c]$. If the learned update tracks the class mean rather than the posterior mean as within-class variance grows, the model's precision on the true conditional distribution will degrade measurably, and the claim that iGCT learns the CFG-like guided vector field would be settled against it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classifier-free-guidance-style behavior can be learned without a classifier-free-trained teacher. For a noisy latent $x_t = x^{\mathrm{src}}_0 + t z$, iGCT uses the same noise $z$ as an estimate of the unconditional noise and uses $z^* = (x_t - x^{\mathrm{tar}}_0)/t$, the direction to a random image from the target class, as an estimate of the conditional noise. The guided consistency step is formed by extrapolating these two directions, $x_r = x_t + (r-t)[w z^* + (1-w)z]$, and the denoiser is trained to map $x_t$ to $x_r$ under the conditioning pair $(c,w)$, mirroring the extrapolation CFG performs at inference. In parallel, the noiser $N_\phi$ is trained on the reverse consistency objective so that it maps images to the same-dimensional noise latent in one step, and a reconstruction loss $d(D_\theta(N_\phi(x_0, t_{\min}, c), t_{\max}, c, 0), x_0)$ aligns the noiser's latent with the denoiser's input. The paper reports that this procedure removes the saturation artifacts CFG produces under high guidance, yields better precision and FID at high guidance scales, and enables class-based editing with a single-step inversion, establishing what the paper says is the first framework to put guidance directly into consistency training.

Load-bearing premise

The whole guided objective rests on identifying the noise that produced a source image with the unconditional direction, and the direction from the noisy image to a random target-class image with the conditional direction; in expectation that second direction points at the average image of the class, not at the class-specific denoising direction that CFG would use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single iGCT checkpoint covers the guidance range $w\in[1,15]$ because $w$ is a conditioning input, so high guidance does not require two separate forward passes as CFG does.
  • Because training is one-stage and data-driven, new diffusion schedulers can be used by training iGCT directly; adoption no longer has to wait for a matching pretrained diffusion teacher.
  • The noiser provides one-step inversion, so class-based editing drops from roughly 18 function evaluations for each of inversion and generation to one step for each.
  • Empirically, high guidance stops hurting: on CIFAR-10 at $w=13$, iGCT's precision is 0.80 and FID is 14.0, versus 0.47 and 32.6 for CFG-EDM, so guidance strength can be raised without the usual saturation collapse.
  • The paper's augmentation experiments show iGCT-synthesized data continues to improve classifier accuracy at guidance scales where CFG-EDM augmentation stops helping.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because $z^*$ as used in training points to a random target-class image rather than to the posterior denoising target, the learned conditional direction is in expectation a pull toward the class-conditional mean image; if that bias is real, iGCT's advantage at high guidance may come partly from a class-mean regularization rather than from true score extrapolation, and the two effects could be sepa
  • The same decoupling suggests a symmetric negative-guidance use the paper does not test: using source-class images in place of target-class images in $z^*$ should push the generated sample away from the source class, which would give a one-step class-removal or negative-prompt editing operator.
  • Because the noiser is deterministic and one-step, the latent it produces is a candidate for latent-space arithmetic, such as noising two real images and denoising their average under a target class, an interpolation test the paper does not run.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Invertible Guided Consistency Training (iGCT), a consistency-model training framework that aims to provide classifier-free-guidance-like control and single-step inversion without distilling a pretrained diffusion model. In the guided branch, it samples a source image, a target-class image, and a noise z, forms x_t = x_src0 + t z, and uses z* = (x_t - x_tar0)/t as a proxy for the conditional noise; the consistency objective is then evaluated between D_theta(x_t, t, c_tar, w) and D_theta-(x_r, r, c_tar, w), where x_r is obtained by moving along w z* + (1-w)z. A separate noiser N_phi is trained with an inverse consistency objective and a reconstruction loss to map images to a noise latent in one step. The paper reports FID, precision, and recall at w in {1,7,13} on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet64, claiming that iGCT improves precision and FID over CFG-EDM and guided-CD at high guidance, and it demonstrates one-step class-based editing.

Significance. If the claims held as stated, the paper would make a useful contribution: it would remove the two-stage DM-distillation requirement for guided consistency models, provide one-step inversion, and report gains in high-guidance regimes. The manuscript is commendable for including pseudocode for all three losses, full hyperparameters, GPU-hour comparisons, and explicit limitations. However, the central theoretical identification, namely that z* is the conditional noise, is incorrect, and the reported precision gains are consistent with a pull toward class centroids rather than with learning the CFG-guided vector field. The empirical study also lacks error bars, and the w=1 ImageNet64 results are far behind the baseline. The method may still be viable as a different kind of target-anchored guidance, but the paper in its current form overstates and mischaracterizes its mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (5), Algorithm 1] The identification of z* := (x_t - x_tar0)/t as the conditional noise is incorrect. Since x_tar0 is drawn independently of x_t from class c_tar, conditioning on x_t and c_tar gives E[z* | x_t, c_tar] = (x_t - mu_{c_tar})/t, whereas the conditional score direction is (x_t - E[x0 | x_t, c_tar])/t. These agree only when the posterior mean equals the class mean, which fails whenever x_t retains information about the source image. Substituting z* into Algorithm 1's guided step, x_r = x_t - Delta t [w z* + (1-w)z], therefore trains the model toward the vector field z + w(x_src0 - mu_c)/t, not toward the CFG-guided PF-ODE of Eq. (3). The claimed equivalence with CFG guidance is thus unsupported, and the precision improvements at high w are consistent with centroid attraction. This is load-bearing because the method's stated contribution depends on learning a CFG-like guided field.
  2. [Sec. 5] The conclusion states that 'the theory for guided consistency training remains intuitive and informal.' Because the central objective in Eq. (5) defines the method, an informal theory is not sufficient to support the abstract's unconditional claim that iGCT 'significantly improves FID and precision compared to CFG.' The authors should either provide a rigorous fixed-point characterization of the consistency training under the z* update, or explicitly re-frame iGCT as a different form of target-anchored guidance and remove the claim that it learns the CFG field.
  3. [Sec. 4.1, Table 1] The headline numbers, e.g., precision 0.80 versus 0.47 at w=13 on CIFAR-10, are reported without error bars or multiple seeds. Given the stochasticity of consistency training and the fact that iGCT uses two networks (Table A2), single-run comparisons are insufficient to support the claim of significant improvement. Additionally, ImageNet64 at w=1 shows iGCT FID 13.16 versus CFG-EDM 3.38 (Table 1b), so the abstract's unqualified 'significantly improves FID and precision compared to CFG' should be restricted to the high-guidance regime.
  4. [Sec. 3.1 and Table 1] The proposed guidance mechanism is not isolated. Add a controlled ablation comparing the guided target z*=(x_t - x_tar0)/t with (i) the class-mean direction (x_t - mu_c)/t and (ii) standard conditional CT with label dropout, keeping the noiser and inversion modules fixed. This would distinguish the contribution of the specific z* construction from generic centroid attraction and would provide evidence for the claimed mechanism.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Algorithm 2, line 7] The target network is written as D_phi-(x_t, t, c), but it should be N_phi-(x_t, t, c) to match Eq. (6).
  2. [Eq. (7)] The arguments of D_theta(N_phi(x0, tmin, c), tmax, c, 0) are not fully defined; in particular, the final argument 0, presumably the guidance weight, should be named, and the roles of tmin and tmax in the inversion/reconstruction chain should be clarified.
  3. [Sec. 1 and elsewhere] References to 'Appendix 5' should be updated to the actual appendix labels (A-E); as written, the pointer does not exist.
  4. [Appendix C, Table A2] The text says CIFAR-10 consistency training is organized into nine stages of 400k iterations, while Table A2 reports 360k total training iterations; these numbers are inconsistent.
  5. [Figure 3] The 1D toy example is presented without specifying the model, the training procedure, or the quantitative definition of 'overshooting'; please provide this information.
  6. [Appendix E.1] The text contains two placeholder references ('Fig. ??'), which should point to Figure A4 or the relevant inversion figures.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the central z* identification is an unproven assumption, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

After walking the derivation chain, I find no step in which a claimed prediction or first-principles result reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to its own inputs. The guided consistency target is defined in Sec. 3.1 by xr = xt + (r - t)[w z* + (1 - w) z] with z* := (xt - xtar0)/t, and Lgct in Eq. (5) trains D_theta to map xt back to that constructed target; the headline FID and precision values in Table 1 are measured after training against held-out dataset statistics, so they are not logically forced by the loss definition. The contested statement that z* serves as an estimate of the true conditional noise is an assumption about what z* represents, not a consequence of the optimization; even if E[z* | xt, ctar] = (xt - mu_c)/t rather than the true conditional score, that is a correctness or bias issue in the method's mechanism, not a circularity of the type where a fitted parameter is renamed a prediction. The paper's own Sec. 5 admits that the theory for guided consistency training remains intuitive and informal, which I weigh as a non-circular correctness caveat. Training choices such as the guidance mask q(t), the guidance range w, and the lambda_recon schedule were tuned, but tuning hyperparameters is not circular reasoning. Baselines CFG-EDM and guided-CD are specified externally, and the preceding methods used as building blocks (ECT's continuous-time schedule, iCD's reconstruction loss) are cited prior work by other authors, not load-bearing self-citations. I therefore find no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on hand-picked training hyperparameters (guidance mask thresholds, reconstruction loss weight schedule, guidance range) and on several unproved assumptions about how consistency training behaves with off-trajectory guided targets and about the invertibility of the clean-to-noise map. The ECT curriculum hyperparameters are borrowed from prior work, so they are not new free parameters, but they are choices this paper makes. No new physical entities are introduced; the 'noiser' is a new network component without external falsifiable evidence.

free parameters (4)
  • guidance mask thresholds t_low and t_high = t_low=11.0, t_high=14.3
    Eq. A1 defines q(t), the probability that a training step uses guided targets, with hand-picked thresholds delimiting the noise region where guidance is applied. The central guidance behavior depends on this schedule.
  • reconstruction loss weight lambda_recon schedule = 2e-5, then 4e-5 and 6e-5 at specified iterations on ImageNet64
    Appendix C reports that fixed lambda_recon leads to inversion collapse on ImageNet64, and the weight was increased manually to stabilize training. This is a post-hoc adjustment to make the method work, with text and table disagreeing on iteration numbers.
  • guidance strength range [wmin, wmax] sampled at training = [1, 15]
    Training samples w uniformly; the model learns guidance only over this range, and test w is chosen inside it. The range is a design choice that bounds the guidance claim.
  • ECT continuous-time curriculum hyperparameters = P_mean=-1.1, P_std=2.0, d=40k, t_min=0.002, t_max=80.0, n(t)=1+8*sigmoid(-t)
    Borrowed from ECT (Geng et al. 2024) rather than fitted here, but they determine the noise levels and step sizes that make iGCT trainable. Included for completeness.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Consistency training with the ECT continuous-time schedule and stop-gradient target converges to the PF-ODE solution as the step size shrinks.
    Invoked throughout Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 3; iGCT assumes the standard CT theory transfers to its guided targets. Not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Treating z as the unconditional noise and z* = (x_t - x_tar_0)/t as the conditional noise gives the correct guided vector field.
    Sec. 3.1 and Fig. 5 build the whole guided objective (Eq. 5, Algorithm 1) on this identification; in expectation z* is the direction to the class-conditional mean image, not the conditional score, so the axiom is the fragile load-bearing premise.
  • ad hoc to paper At low noise levels, unconditional and conditional noise are indistinguishable, so ordinary (unguided) CT targets can be used there.
    Sec. 3.1: 'For low noise samples, x_r is generated solely via the shared noise z assuming that epsilon_phi and epsilon_c are indistinguishable.' Stated without proof; the q(t) mask sets this region.
  • ad hoc to paper The clean-to-noise map on PF-ODE trajectories is a deterministic function of (x0, c), so a single noiser network can invert it.
    The noiser N_phi maps each image to one noise latent (Eq. 6, Algorithm 2). The forward SDE is stochastic; the inverse map is not a function of x0 alone. This assumption underlies the inversion and editing claims and is not discussed in the paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Noiser N_phi
    purpose: A trainable network that maps a clean image and condition to a noise latent in one step, enabling inversion and editing without a diffusion model.
    The noiser is a new component introduced by iGCT. Its invertibility is only demonstrated on the paper's own datasets; no external falsifiable handle is offered.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RDW7LLTI

@misc{pith2026250205391,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RDW7LLTI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05391}
}
read the original abstract

Guidance in image generation steers models towards higher-quality or more targeted outputs, typically achieved in Diffusion Models (DMs) via Classifier-free Guidance (CFG). However, recent Consistency Models (CMs), which offer fewer function evaluations, rely on distilling CFG knowledge from pretrained DMs to achieve guidance, making them costly and inflexible. In this work, we propose invertible Guided Consistency Training (iGCT), a novel training framework for guided CMs that is entirely data-driven. iGCT, as a pioneering work, contributes to fast and guided image generation and editing without requiring the training and distillation of DMs, greatly reducing the overall compute requirements. iGCT addresses the saturation artifacts seen in CFG under high guidance scales. Our extensive experiments on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet64 show that iGCT significantly improves FID and precision compared to CFG. At a guidance of 13, iGCT improves precision to 0.8, while DM's drops to 0.47. Our work takes the first step toward enabling guidance and inversion for CMs without relying on DMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05391 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Guidance of EDM trained via Classifier-free Guidance (CFG) (top-left), and our Invertible Guided Consistency Training (iGCT) (bottom-left). iGCT enables fast inverse-based image editing while preserving the source semantics (right). Unlike CFG, iGCT eliminates the need for two-stage training and removes contrast artifacts, achieving better precision and FID under high guidance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Timeline of key developments in diffusion train￾ing/sampling schedulers (top). The schedulers used by pretrained DMs that CD depends on (bottom). The fields of DM and CT are advancing rapidly in multiple directions, and tightly coupling CM with DM would slow down progress. To train a CM under a particular diffusion scheduler, CD-based CMs rely on a teacher DM trained under the same setting, while CT is free of such … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Overview of iGCT. As oppose to the denoiser, the noiser learns to map image to noise by swapping the model’s input at training, i.e., the noisier sample xt is xr’s target (See Eq. 6 for details). The predicted noise latent and denoised image distribution is aligned using the reconstruction loss [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: In traditional conditional CT, estimating the uncondi￾tional noise ϵ∅ from a noisy sample xt requires averaging over all potential clean images (left). By decoupling the target class c tar from the source image x src 0 , we can estimate ϵ∅ with z as how unconditional C…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Guided generation across levels of guidance scale for CIFAR-10 ”ship” and ImageNet64 ”robin”. The top shows images generated via CFG-based methods (”ship”: Guided-CD, 1 NFE, ”robin”: CFG-EDM, 18 NFEs), the below are results generated from our iGCT, 1 NFE. CFG tends to …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adjusting the w scale for iGCT consistently enhances precision, in contrast to CFG, which experiences declines in both quality and diversity beyond a certain threshold. quality and diversity beyond a certain threshold. We plot the FID and precision/recall tradeoff on C…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: iGCT presents strong potential for real-time image edit￾ing using CMs. Compared to DM-based methods, iGCT aligns source semantics well and achieves rapid edits requiring only a single step. We also introduce a novel noiser component for efficient image-to-noise mapping…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of image editing on ImageNet64 subgroups: ”cats” and ”bears”. iGCT requires only 1 step, and aligns more features from the source compared to EDM. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Bottou, L

    Arjovsky, M. and Bottou, L. Towards principled methods for training generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.04862,

    arXiv

  2. [5]

    Bradley, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2302.05496. Bradley, A. and Nakkiran, P. Classifier-free guidance is a predictor-corrector,

    arXiv

  3. [8]

    Dhariwal, P

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1707.08819. Dhariwal, P. and Nichol, A. Diffusion models beat gans on image synthesis,

    arXiv

  4. [10]

    Dong, W., Xue, S., Duan, X., and Han, S

    URL https://benanne.github.io/ 2022/05/26/guidance.html. Dong, W., Xue, S., Duan, X., and Han, S. Prompt tuning inversion for text-driven image editing using diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 7430–7440,

    work page 2022

  5. [11]

    Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising

    Garibi, D., Patashnik, O., V oynov, A., Averbuch-Elor, H., and Cohen-Or, D. Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14602,

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    and Salimans, T

    Ho, J. and Salimans, T. Classifier-free diffusion guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598,

    arXiv

  7. [16]

    Hu, M., Zhu, M., Zhou, X., Yan, Q., Li, S., Liu, C., and Chen, Q

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2210.02303. Hu, M., Zhu, M., Zhou, X., Yan, Q., Li, S., Liu, C., and Chen, Q. Efficient text-driven motion generation via latent consistency training,

    arXiv

  8. [17]

    9 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training Huang, L., Chen, D., Liu, Y ., Shen, Y ., Zhao, D., and Zhou, J

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.02791. 9 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training Huang, L., Chen, D., Liu, Y ., Shen, Y ., Zhao, D., and Zhou, J. Composer: Creative and controllable image synthesis with composable conditions,

    arXiv

Show all 51 references
  1. [18]

    Huberman-Spiegelglas, I., Kulikov, V ., and Michaeli, T

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2302.09778. Huberman-Spiegelglas, I., Kulikov, V ., and Michaeli, T. An edit friendly ddpm noise space: Inversion and manipu- lations. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 12469– 12478,

    arXiv

  2. [19]

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Hellsten, J., Laine, S., Lehtinen, J., and Aila, T

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1812.04948. Karras, T., Aittala, M., Hellsten, J., Laine, S., Lehtinen, J., and Aila, T. Training generative adversarial networks with limited data,

    arXiv

  3. [20]

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Laine, S., H¨ark¨onen, E., Hellsten, J., Lehtinen, J., and Aila, T

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2006.06676. Karras, T., Aittala, M., Laine, S., H¨ark¨onen, E., Hellsten, J., Lehtinen, J., and Aila, T. Alias-free generative adversarial networks. In Proc. NeurIPS,

    2006 arXiv

  4. [21]

    Guiding a diffusion model with a bad version of itself

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Kynk¨a¨anniemi, T., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T., and Laine, S. Guiding a diffusion model with a bad version of itself. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02507, 2024a. Karras, T., Aittala, M., Kynk¨a¨anniemi, T., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T., and Laine, S. Guiding a diffu...

    arXiv

  5. [23]

    Consis- tency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion

    Kim, D., Lai, C.-H., Liao, W.-H., Murata, N., Takida, Y ., Uesaka, T., He, Y ., Mitsufuji, Y ., and Ermon, S. Consis- tency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02279,

    arXiv

  6. [24]

    Krizhevsky, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1412.6980. Krizhevsky, A. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. University of Toronto, 05

    arXiv

  7. [26]

    org/abs/1904.06991

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/1904.06991. Kynk¨a¨anniemi, T., Aittala, M., Karras, T., Laine, S., Aila, T., and Lehtinen, J. Applying guidance in a limited in- terval improves sample and distribution quality in dif- fusion models,

    1904 arXiv

  8. [27]

    Lee, S., Xu, Y ., Geffner, T., Fanti, G., Kreis, K., Vahdat, A., and Nie, W

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2404.07724. Lee, S., Xu, Y ., Geffner, T., Fanti, G., Kreis, K., Vahdat, A., and Nie, W. Truncated consistency models,

    arXiv

  9. [29]

    S., Hou, Q., Wang, Y ., and Yang, J

    Li, S., van de Weijer, J., Hu, T., Khan, F. S., Hou, Q., Wang, Y ., and Yang, J. Stylediffusion: Prompt- embedding inversion for text-based editing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15649,

    arXiv

  10. [30]

    Liu, S., Liang, Y ., and Gitter, A

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2211.10440. Liu, S., Liang, Y ., and Gitter, A. Loss-balanced task weight- ing to reduce negative transfer in multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelli- gence, volume 33, pp. 9977–9978,

    arXiv

  11. [31]

    Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.11081. Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J. Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic 10 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training model sampling in around 10 steps,

    arXiv

  12. [32]

    Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2206.00927. Lu, C., Zhou, Y ., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J. Dpm- solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models,

    arXiv

  13. [33]

    org/abs/2211.01095

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2211.01095. Luo, S., Tan, Y ., Huang, L., Li, J., and Zhao, H. La- tent consistency models: Synthesizing high-resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378,

    arXiv

  14. [34]

    Meng, C., Rombach, R., Gao, R., Kingma, D., Ermon, S., Ho, J., and Salimans, T

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.01073. Meng, C., Rombach, R., Gao, R., Kingma, D., Ermon, S., Ho, J., and Salimans, T. On distillation of guided diffu- sion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 14297–14306, June

    arXiv

  15. [35]

    Un- rolled generative adversarial networks

    Metz, L., Poole, B., Pfau, D., and Sohl-Dickstein, J. Un- rolled generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.02163,

    arXiv

  16. [37]

    org/abs/2102.09672

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2102.09672. Park, Y .-H., Lai, C.-H., Hayakawa, S., Takida, Y ., and Mit- sufuji, Y .Jump Your Steps: Optimizing sampling sched- ule of discrete diffusion models,

    arXiv

  17. [38]

    Podell, D., English, Z., Lacey, K., Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., M ¨uller, J., Penna, J., and Rombach, R

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.07761. Podell, D., English, Z., Lacey, K., Blattmann, A., Dockhorn, T., M ¨uller, J., Penna, J., and Rombach, R. Sdxl: Im- proving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis,

    arXiv

  18. [39]

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2307.01952. Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 10684–10695,

    arXiv

  19. [40]

    Salimans, T

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11487. Salimans, T. and Ho, J. Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models,

    arXiv

  20. [41]

    Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2202.00512. Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Denoising diffusion implicit models,

    arXiv

  21. [42]

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2010.02502. Song, Y . and Dhariwal, P. Improved techniques for training consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.14189,

    2010 arXiv

  22. [43]

    Song, Y ., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/1907.05600. Song, Y ., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D. P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B. Score-based generative model- ing through stochastic differential equations,

    1907 arXiv

  23. [44]

    Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.13456. Song, Y ., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I. Consis- tency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469,

    2011 arXiv

  24. [45]

    Invertible consistency distillation for text- guided image editing in around 7 steps

    Starodubcev, N., Khoroshikh, M., Babenko, A., and Baranchuk, D. Invertible consistency distillation for text- guided image editing in around 7 steps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.14539,

    arXiv

  25. [46]

    11 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training Zhang, L., Rao, A., and Agrawala, M

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2204.08610. 11 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training Zhang, L., Rao, A., and Agrawala, M. Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models,

    arXiv

  26. [47]

    Zheng, K., Lu, C., Chen, J., and Zhu, J

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.05543. Zheng, K., Lu, C., Chen, J., and Zhu, J. Dpm-solver-v3: Im- proved diffusion ode solver with empirical model statis- tics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:55502–55542,

    arXiv

  27. [48]

    First, we present the pseudocode for the key components of iGCT

    12 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training Our Appendix is organized as follows. First, we present the pseudocode for the key components of iGCT. We also include the proof for unit variance and boundary conditions in preconditioning iGCT’s noiser...

    2024

  28. [49]

    C. Baselines & Training Details For our diffusion model baseline, we follow EDM’s official repository (https://github.com/NVlabs/edm) instructions for training and set label dropout to 0.1 to optimize a CFG (classifier-free guided) DM. We will use this DM as the teacher model ...

    2023

  29. [50]

    For ImageNet64, iGCT employs a reduced ADM architecture (Dhariwal & Nichol,

    3968 iGCT (ours) 2032 weight λrecon is fixed at 2 × 10−5 throughout the entire training process. For ImageNet64, iGCT employs a reduced ADM architecture (Dhariwal & Nichol,

  30. [51]

    A higher dropout rate and Pseudo-Huber loss with c = 0.06 is used, following prior works (Geng et al., 2024; Song & Dhariwal, 2023)

    with smaller channel sizes to address computational constraints. A higher dropout rate and Pseudo-Huber loss with c = 0.06 is used, following prior works (Geng et al., 2024; Song & Dhariwal, 2023). During our experiments, we observed that training on ImageNet64 is sensitive to...

    2024

  31. [52]

    All models are trained for 250 epochs, with batch size 64, using an Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba, 2017)

    is used to train on all different augmented datasets. All models are trained for 250 epochs, with batch size 64, using an Adam optimizer (Kingma & Ba, 2017). For each augmentation dataset, we train the 17 Beyond and Free from Diffusion: Invertible Guided Consistency Training (...

    2017

  32. [2014]

    Gulrajani, I., Ahmed, F., Arjovsky, M., Dumoulin, V ., and Courville, A

    URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661. Gulrajani, I., Ahmed, F., Arjovsky, M., Dumoulin, V ., and Courville, A. C. Improved training of wasserstein gans. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30,

    arXiv

  33. [2015]

    Heek, J., Hoogeboom, E., and Salimans, T

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385. Heek, J., Hoogeboom, E., and Salimans, T. Multistep con- sistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06807,

    arXiv

  34. [2016]

    Negative- prompt inversion: Fast image inversion for editing with text-guided diffusion models

    Miyake, D., Iohara, A., Saito, Y ., and Tanaka, T. Negative- prompt inversion: Fast image inversion for editing with text-guided diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16807,

    arXiv

  35. [2017]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Avrahami, O., Lischinski, D., and Fried, O. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE, June

    2022

  36. [2018]

    Kim, B., Kim, J., Kim, J., and Ye, J. C. Generalized consis- tency trajectory models for image manipulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12510,

    arXiv

  37. [2019]

    Chrabaszcz, P., Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.11096. Chrabaszcz, P., Loshchilov, I., and Hutter, F. A downsam- pled variant of imagenet as an alternative to the cifar datasets,

    arXiv

  38. [2020]

    Ho, J., Chan, W., Saharia, C., Whang, J., Gao, R., Gritsenko, A., Kingma, D

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2006.11239. Ho, J., Chan, W., Saharia, C., Whang, J., Gao, R., Gritsenko, A., Kingma, D. P., Poole, B., Norouzi, M., Fleet, D. J., and Salimans, T. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models,

    2006 arXiv

  39. [2021]

    Dieleman, S

    URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2105.05233. Dieleman, S. Guidance: a cheat code for diffusion mod- els,

    arXiv

  40. [2022]

    URL http://dx

    doi: 10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01767. URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01767. Bar-Tal, O., Yariv, L., Lipman, Y ., and Dekel, T. Multi- diffusion: Fusing diffusion paths for controlled image generation,

    2022

  41. [2023]

    Bashkirova, D., Lezama, J., Sohn, K., Saenko, K., and Essa, I

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2302.08113. Bashkirova, D., Lezama, J., Sohn, K., Saenko, K., and Essa, I. Masksketch: Unpaired structure-guided masked image generation,

    arXiv

  42. [2024]

    org/abs/2408.09000

    URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2408.09000. Brock, A., Donahue, J., and Simonyan, K. Large scale gan training for high fidelity natural image synthesis,

    arXiv

  43. [2025]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14895. Li, L. and He, J. Bidirectional consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.18035,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.