Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 88 references

A First-order Generative Bilevel Optimization Framework for Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that reward fine-tuning and noise-schedule design for diffusion models can be solved as a first-order bilevel optimization, with a closed-form Monte Carlo gradient for fine-tuning and zeroth-order estimates for scheduling.

desk verdict Promising bilevel framing and a credible noise-schedule half, but the fine-tuning gradient rests on a KL direction swap that breaks the inference-only update. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08808 v2 pith:KIKQXMHM submitted 2025-02-12 cs.LG math.OCstat.ML

Quan Xiao , Hui Yuan , A F M Saif , Gaowen Liu , Ramana Kompella , Mengdi Wang , Tianyi Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGmath.OCstat.ML
keywords bileveloptimizationdiffusionmodelsrewardfine-tuningnoiseschedulingfirst-ordermethodszeroth-orderentropyregularizationhyperparameter
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 formalizes two diffusion-model tuning tasks as a single nested problem: choose a hyperparameter so that the distribution produced by the lower-level diffusion objective also minimizes an upper-level quality metric. It claims that this generative bilevel problem can be solved with first-order updates in both settings, namely reward fine-tuning of a pretrained model and noise-schedule learning during training from scratch. For fine-tuning, the upper-level gradient has a closed-form Monte Carlo expression that avoids guided sampling at every iteration; for noise scheduling, a zeroth-order estimator combined with the closed-form chain rule through the score-matching loss makes schedule optimization tractable. A descent theorem shows the penalty-reformulated update decreases the hyper-function when the projected gradient is nonzero. If the claims hold, entropy strength and noise schedules can be tuned automatically, with reported FID and CLIP gains over grid, random, Bayesian, and weighted-sum baselines.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the penalty-based bilevel gradient $\nabla L^*_\gamma(x)=\nabla_x f(x,z^*)+\gamma(\nabla_x g(x,z^*)-\nabla_x g(x,y^*))$, which turns the nested problem into two distribution-level subproblems at each step. The lower-level solver for fine-tuning is guided backward sampling, with guidance terms defined by the reward and penalty rewards, which converges to the entropy-regularized tilted distribution without training or backpropagation. Proposition 1 is the hinge: it replaces the difference of KL divergences with expectations under $p_{\rm data}$, so the upper-level update becomes a one-line Monte Carlo estimator. For noise scheduling, the corresponding machinery is the explicit derivative $\partial u_t/\partial q_t$ combined with two-point zeroth-order estimates for the nondifferentiable sample-quality term, all wrapped in a four-parameter cosine or sigmoid scheduler.

What would settle it

Take a Gaussian data distribution with a simple reward, compute $p^*(\lambda)$ and $p^*_\gamma(\lambda)$ in closed form, and compare the Monte Carlo estimator (33) against the true $\nabla L^*_\gamma(\lambda)$ from (12). A systematic disagreement in direction or magnitude would show that the closed-form gradient is not the gradient of the stated bilevel objective.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the generative bilevel problem can be attacked directly through its single-level penalty reformulation, because both needed subproblems, the lower-level solution $y^*$ and the penalty solution $z^*$, can be approximated by diffusion-friendly oracles. For reward fine-tuning, the gradient of the penalty objective reduces to $\nabla L^*_\gamma(\lambda)=\gamma(\mathrm{KL}(p^*_\gamma(\lambda)\|p_{\rm data})-\mathrm{KL}(p^*(\lambda)\|p_{\rm data}))$, and by Proposition 1 this has a closed form as expectations over the pretrained distribution. That lets the entropy strength $\lambda$ be updated by Monte Carlo averages instead of by guided sampling per iteration. For noise scheduling, the score-matching loss has an explicit dependence on the scheduler, giving a closed-form chain-rule gradient for $q$, while the sample-quality term is estimated by zeroth-order differences; the scheduler is restricted to four cosine or sigmoid parameters. The paper argues this is the first bilevel hyperparameter treatment of diffusion models and verifies it by comparing against search baselines.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the KL identity (27) used in the proof of Proposition 1: it expresses the KL divergence between the fine-tuned and pretrained distributions as expectations under the pretrained distribution. If the direction of that identity is not the standard one (or is only an approximation), the Monte Carlo update in (33) could be optimizing a different objective than the bilevel problem.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For reward fine-tuning, the upper-level entropy strength $\lambda$ can be updated from a fixed batch of pretrained samples, so no guided backward pass is needed at each $\lambda$ iteration.
  • The same bilevel update can select a per-prompt $\lambda$ automatically; in the reported experiments, the bilevel method improves FID by 11.76% and CLIP by 8.32% over the best weighted-sum baseline in the synthetic-reward setting.
  • For noise scheduling, optimizing four scalar schedule parameters with zeroth-order gradients gives FID and IS comparable to the strongest search baselines while using roughly a sixth of the time, and it preserves digit diversity rather than collapsing to easy classes.
  • Theorem 1 guarantees descent of the hyper-function whenever the projected gradient is nonzero and the penalty constant is large enough, so in both applications the update is not merely heuristic.
  • If correct, the framework removes the two standard blockers for bilevel methods on diffusion models: access to gradients over infinite-dimensional probability spaces and the cost of backpropagating through long sampling trajectories.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the Proposition 1 estimator would apply to any generative model whose lower-level solution is an entropy-regularized tilted distribution and for which samples from the reference distribution are available, not only to image diffusion models.
  • Editorial inference: because the noise-schedule upper-level gradient is built from a closed-form chain rule through the score-matching loss, the same construction could extend to learned, nonparametric schedules rather than the four-parameter cosine and sigmoid families.
  • Editorial inference: if the KL-identity concern were resolved in the direction the paper uses, the closed-form gradient could also be used to derive finite-sample concentration rates for the Monte Carlo estimator, which the paper does not state.
  • Editorial inference: the zeroth-order treatment of the sample-quality loss is metric-agnostic, so the noise-scheduling algorithm could be tested with differentiable perceptual metrics other than FID without changing the method.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a first-order bilevel optimization framework for diffusion models, formalizing two applications: reward fine-tuning with an entropy-regularization strength λ, and noise-schedule learning during training. The method uses a penalty reformulation of the bilevel problem (Eqs. (2)–(4)), guided sampling for the lower-level distribution in the pretrained-model setting, and a claimed closed-form gradient (Proposition 1, Eq. (13)) that allows λ to be updated from pre-trained distribution samples without guided sampling per iteration. For noise scheduling, the paper proposes zeroth-order gradient estimators over a four-parameter schedule. The authors provide a descent theorem (Theorem 1) under strong convexity and report improvements over grid, random, Bayesian, and weighted-sum baselines on FID and CLIP scores (Tables 1–3). The code is publicly released.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were correct, the paper would be a useful contribution: it targets an important hyperparameter-selection problem in diffusion models, combines penalty-based bilevel machinery with diffusion-specific sampling oracles, ships code, and includes comparisons against standard hyperparameter-search baselines. However, the central inference-only gradient derivation in Proposition 1 rests on a KL divergence identity with reversed arguments, and the Assumption 1 justification does not hold for the implemented U-Net score-matching lower level. Because the inference-only fine-tuning update is the paper's main algorithmic novelty, the core claim is not established; the empirical gains cannot be attributed to the stated bilevel objective without substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D.1, Eq. (27)] The identity cited to Tang (2024) has the KL directions reversed. With p*(u) ∝ pdata(u) exp(r2(u)/λ), the forward KL is KL(p*∥pdata) = E_{p*}[r2/λ] − log E_{pdata}[e^{r2/λ}], whereas the right-hand side of Eq. (27) equals −E_{pdata}[r2/λ] + log E_{pdata}[e^{r2/λ}] = KL(pdata∥p*). The same reversal occurs for p*γ. Since Eq. (12) is γ(KL(p*γ∥pdata) − KL(p*∥pdata)), Proposition 1's Eq. (13) and the Monte Carlo estimator (33) are not the gradient of the stated upper-level objective; they differentiate a different, reverse-KL functional. This invalidates the inference-only λ update in Algorithm 2, which is the central methodological claim of Section 4.1. A simple two-point or Gaussian example confirms that the two KL terms differ; no external reference is needed.
  2. [Section 5, Assumption 1 with Eqs. (10) and (24)] Theorem 1 is stated under strong convexity of g(x,·), but the noise-scheduling application does not satisfy this assumption as implemented. The lower-level variable is θ, and LSM(θ, u(q)) in Eq. (24) is a squared loss of a U-Net in θ; it is not strongly convex in the network parameters. The cited functional-space convexity (Petrulionyte et al., 2024) is not shown to transfer to the finite-dimensional U-Net parameterization used in Algorithm 6 and the experiments. For the fine-tuning application, strong log-concavity of pdata is asserted rather than verified for the Stable Diffusion latent distribution. Thus Theorem 1 does not cover the algorithms as actually run.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Section 5, εk=0 claim] The derivation of Eq. (12) presumes approximate solutions z* and y* of the penalty and lower-level problems, and the proof of Theorem 1 controls their errors through εk. Algorithm 2, however, computes no such inner-loop approximations and instead uses Proposition 1 with pdata samples. If Proposition 1 were correct, the εk = 0 statement in Section 5 would follow; but because Eq. (27) is wrong, the claim that the upper-level gradient estimator is independent of inner-loop accuracy is not supported. This leaves Algorithm 2 without a valid convergence guarantee relative to the problem it is claimed to solve.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.1] The text says 'We evaluate bilevel reward fine-tuning Algorithm 5', but Algorithm 5 is the single-level guided-diffusion routine; the bilevel procedure for this application is Algorithm 2.
  2. [Algorithm 6, line 15 and Eq. (14)] The perturbed quantity is written as q_{k,perturb} in Algorithm 6 without a definition, whereas Eq. (14) uses ξ/(2ν) for the zeroth-order estimator. The notation and scaling should be aligned so the reader can verify the estimator used in the experiments.
  3. [Appendix F.2, Eq. (34)] The sigmoid parameterization in Eq. (34) appears to have inconsistent notation: τ is not defined, and the default values q_s = −3, q_e = 3, q_τ = 0.1 do not obviously correspond to the displayed formula. Please clarify the exact dependence on the four optimized parameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: the lambda- and q-updates come from published identities and are optimized, not fitted to their own outputs; the main caveat is a correctness risk in Eq. (27), not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to circularity. The penalty reformulation (2) and gradient proxy (4) are standard results cited both to the authors' own Shen et al. (2025b) and to the independent Kwon et al. (2024, 2023); the guided-sampling solver from Guo et al. (2024) is a published external method, and the paper invokes no uniqueness claim to foreclose alternatives. The fine-tuning update in Algorithm 2 uses Proposition 1's closed-form gradient (13), implemented as the Monte Carlo mean (33); lambda is then optimized and evaluated on held-out prompts, so the reported CLIP/FID numbers are outcomes of the optimization rather than fitted constants renamed as predictions. The noise-scheduling update (Algorithm 6) uses zeroth-order estimates of the upper-level gradient and a four-parameter cosine/sigmoid parameterization from prior work; q is optimized on-line and compared with grid, random, and Bayesian baselines, again without post-hoc fitting to the reported FID/IS values. One non-circular caveat: Eq. (27) in Appendix D.1 states KL(p*||pdata) = -E_pdata[r2/lambda] + log E_pdata[e^{r2/lambda}], but under the paper's own definition p*(u) proportional to pdata(u)e^{r2(u)/lambda}, the right-hand side is the reverse KL KL(pdata||p*). If this is not a typo, Proposition 1 and the inference-only gradient (33) target a different objective. That is a correctness and derivation risk, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Counts: two hand-chosen algorithm constants, four background assumptions (two of them questionable), no invented entities. The main theoretical weight rests on Assumption 1 and on the KL identity (27); the latter appears to mismatch forward and reverse KL and is the main cause of the reject verdict.

free parameters (2)
  • Penalty constant gamma = 1e3 (Tables 1 and 2)
    Hand-chosen; Theorem 1 requires gamma large relative to problem constants, but no sensitivity analysis or verification is provided.
  • Zeroth-order perturbation nu = 0.01 (Algorithm 6)
    Hand-chosen; controls bias and variance of the zeroth-order gradient estimators; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: lower-level objective g(x,.) is mu_g-strongly convex and smooth; f and g are jointly smooth; f is Lipschitz; g has Lipschitz Hessian.
    Used in Lemma 1 and Theorem 1. Not met by U-Net score matching over parameter space and questionable for KL over distributions with arbitrary pdata.
  • domain assumption Eq. (27): KL(p*||pdata) = -E_pdata[r/lambda] + log E_pdata[e^{r/lambda}], cited to Tang (2024).
    Unproved in this paper; as written it is reverse KL for the tilted distribution, while Eq. (12) requires forward KL.
  • domain assumption Guided backward sampling (Algorithm 5) converges to the entropy-regularized optimum p* used in Eq. (9).
    Needed to identify the lower-level solution with the exponential tilt; relies on external convergence results (Guo et al., 2024; Uehara et al., 2024) not reproduced here.
  • ad hoc to paper Score matching loss is strongly convex over the parameterized probability space.
    Used to apply Theorem 1 to noise scheduling; not established for the implemented U-Net parameterization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A First-order Generative Bilevel Optimization Framework for Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIKQXMHM

@misc{pith2026250208808,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A First-order Generative Bilevel Optimization Framework for Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIKQXMHM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08808}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion models, which iteratively denoise data samples to synthesize high-quality outputs, have achieved empirical success across domains. However, optimizing these models for downstream tasks often involves nested bilevel structures, such as tuning hyperparameters for fine-tuning tasks or noise schedules in training dynamics, where traditional bilevel methods fail due to the infinite-dimensional probability space and prohibitive sampling costs. We formalize this challenge as a generative bilevel optimization problem and address two key scenarios: (1) fine-tuning pre-trained models via an inference-only lower-level solver paired with a sample-efficient gradient estimator for the upper level, and (2) training diffusion model from scratch with noise schedule optimization by reparameterizing the lower-level problem and designing a computationally tractable gradient estimator. Our first-order bilevel framework overcomes the incompatibility of conventional bilevel methods with diffusion processes, offering theoretical grounding and computational practicality. Experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms existing fine-tuning and hyperparameter search baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08808 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of bilevel generative optimization problems. (Left) Fine-tuning diffusion model with entropy regularization strength parameter λ. (Right) Noise parameter qt scheduling problem in the diffusion model. where x is some hyperparameter in the diffusion model and y represents a distribution we aim to learn, which can be either an image distribution or a noise distribution. Both the upper-level f : R dx × P → R… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of generated images: (a) Horse and (c) elephant generated with λ = 0.01, leading to reward over￾optimization and resulting in more abstract images misaligned with captions. In contrast, (b) horse and (d) elephant, generated using the bilevel method with λ optimized via CLIP score. This suggests CLIP score is a proper metrics for λ selection. More vi￾sualizations are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/f… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visualization of images generated at different steps: (a) Images generated with λ = 0.1 become progressively more ab￾stract at each step, while (b) images generated with bilevel method (λ = 55.5) are more colorful and vivid than the pre-trained images and achieve a perfect balance of quality across steps. point or selected through cross-validation - the distribution generated using the hyperparameter xk of bilevel a… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Change of λ over iteration given by bilevel approach for different prompts. More visualizations are provided in Figures 9–11 and can be found in Appendix, which visually illustrate the impact of over-aggressive reward optimization, which tends to gen￾erate more abstrac…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Varying hyperparameters start qs, end qe, power qτ and offset qϵ in cosine parameterization learned by bilevel method along the training steps and corresponding noise scheduler q(t) at iteration k = 0, 100, 300, 469 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: While all HPO on fine-tuned models enhance the aesthetic, clarity and sharpness compared to the pre-trained image, the random, grid, Bayesian search, and weighted sum approaches messed up the legs and trunk, and fail to generate the right number of elephant’s legs. In …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of the final generated images by different methods using cosine parameterization. noise scheduling for training a diffusion model from scratch. For fine-tuning, we propose an inference-only bilevel ap￾proach to guide the diffusion model toward the target …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Balancing the realism and aesthetic in the image generation by controlling the entropy regularization strength parameter λ. Prompt: "An African elephant on a foggy morning, with hot air balloons landing in the background." 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Visualization of the final generated images (step-7) by different methods. Prompt: "A realistic photo of a horse standing on lush green grass in a countryside meadow on a sunny day, with clear blue sky in the background." (a) Grid Search: The generated images do not fu…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Visualization of the final generated images by different methods. Prompt: "An African elephant on a foggy morning, with hot air balloons landing in the background." (a) Grid Search: Some images exhibit deformed elephant figures, and the hot air balloons are missing. (…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization of the final generated images by different methods. Prompt: "A gentleman wearing white clothes and a beard, posing in a seaside setting." (a) Grid Search: Struggles to generate human faces; images appear blurry. (b) Bayesian Search: Some faces are blurry…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and Mairal, J

    Arbel, M. and Mairal, J. Amortized implicit differentiation for stochastic bilevel optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, virtual, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Universal guidance for diffusion models

    Bansal, A., Chu, H.-M., Schwarzschild, A., Sengupta, S., Goldblum, M., Geiping, J., and Goldstein, T. Universal guidance for diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 843--852, 2023

    2023

  3. [3]

    Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning

    Black, K., Janner, M., Du, Y., Kostrikov, I., and Levine, S. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    and McGill, J

    Bracken, J. and McGill, J. T. Mathematical programs with optimization problems in the constraints. Operations Research, 21 0 (1): 0 37--44, 1973

    1973

  5. [5]

    On finding small hyper-gradients in bilevel optimization: Hardness results and improved analysis

    Chen, L., Xu, J., and Zhang, J. On finding small hyper-gradients in bilevel optimization: Hardness results and improved analysis. In The Thirty Seventh Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pp.\ 947--980. PMLR, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models

    Chen, T. On the importance of noise scheduling for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10972, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Closing the gap: Tighter analysis of alternating stochastic gradient methods for bilevel problems

    Chen, T., Sun, Y., and Yin, W. Closing the gap: Tighter analysis of alternating stochastic gradient methods for bilevel problems. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual, 2021

    2021

  8. [8]

    T., Klasky, M

    Chung, H., Kim, J., Mccann, M. T., Klasky, M. L., and Ye, J. C. Diffusion posterior sampling for general noisy inverse problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.14687, 2022

    arXiv 2022

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Clark, K., Vicol, P., Swersky, K., and Fleet, D. J. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17400, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Clark, K., Vicol, P., Swersky, K., and Fleet, D. J. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, Vienna, Austria, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    T., and Shah, M

    Croitoru, F.-A., Hondru, V., Ionescu, R. T., and Shah, M. Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45 0 (9): 0 10850--10869, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    V., Barbano, R., Dutordoir, V., Mathieu, E., Komorowska, U

    Denker, A., Vargas, F., Padhy, S., Didi, K., Mathis, S. V., Barbano, R., Dutordoir, V., Mathieu, E., Komorowska, U. J., and Lio, P. Deft: Efficient fine-tuning of diffusion models by learning the generalised h -transform. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Syst...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Reinforcement learning for fine-tuning text-to-image diffusion models

    Fan, Y., Watkins, O., Du, Y., Liu, H., Ryu, M., Boutilier, C., Abbeel, P., Ghavamzadeh, M., Lee, K., and Lee, K. Reinforcement learning for fine-tuning text-to-image diffusion models. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks

    Finn, C., Abbeel, P., and Levine, S. Model-agnostic meta-learning for fast adaptation of deep networks. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Forward and reverse gradient-based hyperparameter optimization

    Franceschi, L., Donini, M., Frasconi, P., and Pontil, M. Forward and reverse gradient-based hyperparameter optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning

    Franceschi, L., Frasconi, P., Salzo, S., Grazzi, R., and Pontil, M. Bilevel programming for hyperparameter optimization and meta-learning. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization

    Gao, L., Schulman, J., and Hilton, J. Scaling laws for reward model overoptimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 10835--10866, Honolulu, HI, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    and Wang, M

    Ghadimi, S. and Wang, M. Approximation methods for bilevel programming. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.02246, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bi-level alignment for cross-domain crowd counting

    Gong, S., Zhang, S., Yang, J., Dai, D., and Schiele, B. Bi-level alignment for cross-domain crowd counting. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, New Orleans, LA, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    On the iteration complexity of hypergradient computation

    Grazzi, R., Franceschi, L., Pontil, M., and Salzo, S. On the iteration complexity of hypergradient computation. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, virtual, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Gradient guidance for diffusion models: An optimization perspective

    Guo, Y., Yuan, H., Yang, Y., Chen, M., and Wang, M. Gradient guidance for diffusion models: An optimization perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14743, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    J., Norouzi, M., and Salimans, T

    Ho, J., Saharia, C., Chan, W., Fleet, D. J., Norouzi, M., and Salimans, T. Cascaded diffusion models for high fidelity image generation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23 0 (47): 0 1--33, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    A two-timescale stochastic algorithm framework for bilevel optimization: Complexity analysis and application to actor-critic

    Hong, M., Wai, H.-T., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. A two-timescale stochastic algorithm framework for bilevel optimization: Complexity analysis and application to actor-critic. SIAM Journal on Optimization, 33 0 (1): 0 147--180, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    simple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution images

    Hoogeboom, E., Heek, J., and Salimans, T. simple diffusion: End-to-end diffusion for high resolution images. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, HI, 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Bilevel optimization: Convergence analysis and enhanced design

    Ji, K., Yang, J., and Liang, Y. Bilevel optimization: Convergence analysis and enhanced design. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, virtual, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    M., Real-Rojas, F., Marques, A

    Jiang, L., Xiao, Q., Tenorio, V. M., Real-Rojas, F., Marques, A. G., and Chen, T. A primal-dual-assisted penalty approach to bilevel optimization with coupled constraints. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Torsional diffusion for molecular conformer generation

    Jing, B., Corso, G., Chang, J., Barzilay, R., and Jaakkola, T. Torsional diffusion for molecular conformer generation. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models

    Karras, T., Aittala, M., Aila, T., and Laine, S. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    A near-optimal algorithm for stochastic bilevel optimization via double-momentum

    Khanduri, P., Zeng, S., Hong, M., Wai, H.-T., Wang, Z., and Yang, Z. A near-optimal algorithm for stochastic bilevel optimization via double-momentum. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Variational diffusion models

    Kingma, D., Salimans, T., Poole, B., and Ho, J. Variational diffusion models. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Kingma, D. P. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2015

    2015

  25. [33]

    Kwon, J., Kwon, D., Wright, S., and Nowak, R. D. A fully first-order method for stochastic bilevel optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, HI, 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    On penalty methods for nonconvex bilevel optimization and first-order stochastic approximation

    Kwon, J., Kwon, D., Wright, S., and Nowak, R. On penalty methods for nonconvex bilevel optimization and first-order stochastic approximation. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, Vienna, Austria, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    A fully single loop algorithm for bilevel optimization without hessian inverse

    Li, J., Gu, B., and Huang, H. A fully single loop algorithm for bilevel optimization without hessian inverse. In Proc. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, virtual, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed

    Lin, S., Liu, B., Li, J., and Yang, X. Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pp.\ 5404--5411, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

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

    Liu, B., Ye, M., Wright, S., Stone, P., et al. Bome! bilevel optimization made easy: A simple first-order approach. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    DARTS : Differentiable architecture search

    Liu, H., Simonyan, K., and Yang, Y. DARTS : Differentiable architecture search. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, New Orleans, LA, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Liu, H., Chen, Z., Yuan, Y., Mei, X., Liu, X., Mandic, D., Wang, W., and Plumbley, M. D. Audioldm: Text-to-audio generation with latent diffusion models. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 21450--21474, Honolulu, HI, 2023 a

    2023

  32. [40]

    Averaged method of multipliers for bi-level optimization without lower-level strong convexity

    Liu, R., Liu, Y., Yao, W., Zeng, S., and Zhang, J. Averaged method of multipliers for bi-level optimization without lower-level strong convexity. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Honolulu, HI, 2023 b

    2023

  33. [41]

    and Mei, S

    Lu, Z. and Mei, S. First-order penalty methods for bilevel optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01716, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Self-tuning networks: Bilevel optimization of hyperparameters using structured best-response functions

    Mackay, M., Vicol, P., Lorraine, J., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. Self-tuning networks: Bilevel optimization of hyperparameters using structured best-response functions. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  35. [43]

    Gradient-based hyperparameter optimization through reversible learning

    Maclaurin, D., Duvenaud, D., and Adams, R. Gradient-based hyperparameter optimization through reversible learning. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille, France, 2015

    2015

  36. [44]

    Implicit diffusion: Efficient optimization through stochastic sampling

    Marion, P., Korba, A., Bartlett, P., Blondel, M., De Bortoli, V., Doucet, A., Llinares-L \'o pez, F., Paquette, C., and Berthet, Q. Implicit diffusion: Efficient optimization through stochastic sampling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.05468, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    and Hvilsh j, F

    Mathiasen, A. and Hvilsh j, F. Backpropagating through frechet inception distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.14075, 2020

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    and Spokoiny, V

    Nesterov, Y. and Spokoiny, V. Random gradient-free minimization of convex functions. Foundations of Computational Mathematics, 17 0 (2): 0 527--566, 2017

    2017

  39. [47]

    Nesterov, Y. et al. Lectures on convex optimization, volume 137. Springer, 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Nichol, A. Q. and Dhariwal, P. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, pp.\ 8162--8171, 2021

    2021

  41. [49]

    Hyperparameter optimization with approximate gradient

    Pedregosa, F. Hyperparameter optimization with approximate gradient. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, New York City, NY, 2016

    2016

  42. [50]

    Functional bilevel optimization for machine learning

    Petrulionyte, I., Mairal, J., and Arbel, M. Functional bilevel optimization for machine learning. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2024

    2024

  43. [51]

    Bidora: Bi-level optimization-based weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation

    Qin, P., Zhang, R., and Xie, P. Bidora: Bi-level optimization-based weight-decomposed low-rank adaptation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09758, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., and Brox, T. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, ...

    2015

  45. [53]

    M., and Kuleshov, V

    Sahoo, S., Gokaslan, A., De Sa, C. M., and Kuleshov, V. Diffusion models with learned adaptive noise. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Learning to warm-start fixed-point optimization algorithms

    Sambharya, R., Hall, G., Amos, B., and Stellato, B. Learning to warm-start fixed-point optimization algorithms. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 25 0 (166): 0 1--46, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    A deep learning theory for neural networks grounded in physics

    Scellier, B. A deep learning theory for neural networks grounded in physics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.09985, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    and Bengio, Y

    Scellier, B. and Bengio, Y. Equilibrium propagation: Bridging the gap between energy-based models and backpropagation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 11: 0 24, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    pytorch-fid: FID Score for PyTorch

    Seitzer, M. pytorch-fid: FID Score for PyTorch . https://github.com/mseitzer/pytorch-fid, August 2020. Version 0.3.0

    2020

  50. [58]

    Truncated back-propagation for bilevel optimization

    Shaban, A., Cheng, C.-A., Hatch, N., and Boots, B. Truncated back-propagation for bilevel optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Naha, Japan, 2019

    2019

  51. [59]

    An optimal algorithm for bandit and zero-order convex optimization with two-point feedback

    Shamir, O. An optimal algorithm for bandit and zero-order convex optimization with two-point feedback. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 0 (1--1): 0 1703--1713, 2017

    2017

  52. [60]

    Principled penalty-based methods for bilevel reinforcement learning and RLHF

    Shen, H., Yang, Z., and Chen, T. Principled penalty-based methods for bilevel reinforcement learning and RLHF . In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Vienna, Austria, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Seal: Safety-enhanced aligned LLM fine-tuning via bilevel data selection

    Shen, H., Chen, P.-Y., Das, P., and Chen, T. Seal: Safety-enhanced aligned LLM fine-tuning via bilevel data selection. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025 a

    2025

  54. [62]

    On penalty-based bilevel gradient descent method

    Shen, H., Xiao, Q., and Chen, T. On penalty-based bilevel gradient descent method. Mathematical Programming, pp.\ 1--51, 2025 b

    2025

  55. [63]

    Snoek, J., Larochelle, H., and Adams, R. P. Practical bayesian optimization of machine learning algorithms. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2012

    2012

  56. [64]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. Denoising diffusion implicit models. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, virtual, 2021 a

    2021

  57. [65]

    P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B

    Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D. P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. In Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations, virtual, 2021 b

    2021

  58. [66]

    Learning intrinsic rewards as a bi-level optimization problem

    Stadie, B., Zhang, L., and Ba, J. Learning intrinsic rewards as a bi-level optimization problem. In Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, virtual, 2020

    2020

  59. [67]

    Fine-tuning of diffusion models via stochastic control: entropy regularization and beyond

    Tang, W. Fine-tuning of diffusion models via stochastic control: entropy regularization and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06279, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Tuning-free alignment of diffusion models with direct noise optimization

    Tang, Z., Peng, J., Tang, J., Hong, M., Wang, F., and Chang, T.-H. Tuning-free alignment of diffusion models with direct noise optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18881, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A., Li, M., Thrampoulidis, C., and Oymak, S

    Tarzanagh, D. A., Li, M., Thrampoulidis, C., and Oymak, S. FEDNEST : Federated bilevel, minimax, and compositional optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Baltimore, MD, 2022

    2022

  62. [70]

    L., Tseng, A

    Uehara, M., Zhao, Y., Black, K., Hajiramezanali, E., Scalia, G., Diamant, N. L., Tseng, A. M., Biancalani, T., and Levine, S. Fine-tuning of continuous-time diffusion models as entropy-regularized control. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15194, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    and Wibisono, A

    Vempala, S. and Wibisono, A. Rapid convergence of the unadjusted langevin algorithm: Isoperimetry suffices. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, Canada, 2019

    2019

  64. [72]

    P., Pedregosa, F., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R

    Vicol, P., Lorraine, J. P., Pedregosa, F., Duvenaud, D., and Grosse, R. B. On implicit bias in overparameterized bilevel optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Baltimore, MD, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    Noise schedules in stable diffusion

    Vidhya, A. Noise schedules in stable diffusion. https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2024/07/noise-schedules-in-stable-diffusion/, 2024

    2024

  66. [74]

    End-to-end diffusion latent optimization improves classifier guidance

    Wallace, B., Gokul, A., Ermon, S., and Naik, N. End-to-end diffusion latent optimization improves classifier guidance. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 7280--7290, 2023

    2023

  67. [75]

    On discrete prompt optimization for diffusion models

    Wang, R., Liu, T., Hsieh, C.-J., and Gong, B. On discrete prompt optimization for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01606, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    In-context learning unlocked for diffusion models

    Wang, Z., Jiang, Y., Lu, Y., He, P., Chen, W., Wang, Z., and Zhou, M. In-context learning unlocked for diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp.\ 8542--8562, 2023

    2023

  69. [77]

    Diffusion-based molecule generation with informative prior bridges

    Wu, L., Gong, C., Liu, X., Ye, M., and Liu, Q. Diffusion-based molecule generation with informative prior bridges. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2022

    2022

  70. [78]

    Human preference score v2: A solid benchmark for evaluating human preferences of text-to-image synthesis

    Wu, X., Hao, Y., Sun, K., Chen, Y., Zhu, F., Zhao, R., and Li, H. Human preference score v2: A solid benchmark for evaluating human preferences of text-to-image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09341, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    A generalized alternating method for bilevel optimization under the polyak- ojasiewicz condition

    Xiao, Q., Lu, S., and Chen, T. A generalized alternating method for bilevel optimization under the polyak- ojasiewicz condition. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, New Orleans, LA, 2023

    2023

  72. [80]

    Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation

    Yang, D., Yu, J., Wang, H., Wang, W., Weng, C., Zou, Y., and Yu, D. Diffsound: Discrete diffusion model for text-to-sound generation. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio, Speech, and Language Processing, 31: 0 1720--1733, 2023

    2023

  73. [81]

    Provably faster algorithms for bilevel optimization

    Yang, J., Ji, K., and Liang, Y. Provably faster algorithms for bilevel optimization. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, virtual, 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Using human feedback to fine-tune diffusion models without any reward model

    Yang, K., Tao, J., Lyu, J., Ge, C., Chen, J., Shen, W., Zhu, X., and Li, X. Using human feedback to fine-tune diffusion models without any reward model. In Proc. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Seattle, WA, 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    Overcoming lower-level constraints in bilevel optimization: A novel approach with regularized gap functions

    Yao, W., Yin, H., Zeng, S., and Zhang, J. Overcoming lower-level constraints in bilevel optimization: A novel approach with regularized gap functions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01992, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Reward-directed conditional diffusion: Provable distribution estimation and reward improvement

    Yuan, H., Huang, K., Ni, C., Chen, M., and Wang, M. Reward-directed conditional diffusion: Provable distribution estimation and reward improvement. In Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2024

    2024

  77. [85]

    W., Hansen, L

    Zakarias, G. W., Hansen, L. K., and Tan, Z.-H. Bissl: Bilevel optimization for self-supervised pre-training and fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02387, 2024

    2024

  78. [86]

    Revisiting and advancing fast adversarial training through the lens of bi-level optimization

    Zhang, Y., Zhang, G., Khanduri, P., Hong, M., Chang, S., and Liu, S. Revisiting and advancing fast adversarial training through the lens of bi-level optimization. In Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning, Baltimore, MD, 2022

    2022

  79. [87]

    and Sacramento, J

    Zucchet, N. and Sacramento, J. Beyond backpropagation: bilevel optimization through implicit differentiation and equilibrium propagation. Neural Computation, 34 0 (12): 0 2309--2346, 2022

    2022

  80. [88]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.