Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

A Minimalist Method for Fine-tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 optimizing only the initial noise distribution, with the diffusion model kept frozen, consistently improves text-image alignment and sample quality, with the largest gains at low inference steps.

desk verdict A genuinely simple RL idea for learning good initial noise, but the evaluation leans too heavily on the exact rewards it optimizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12036 v3 pith:VSXSX4Q4 submitted 2025-05-23 cs.LG cs.AI

Yanting Miao , William Loh , Pacal Poupart , Suraj Kothawade This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords text-to-imagediffusionreinforcementlearningfine-tuninggoldennoisehypothesisinitialoptimizationprompt-conditionedpolicyPPOLatentConsistencyModeltext-imagealignment
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 tries to establish that a text-to-image diffusion model can be improved for prompt alignment and sample quality by changing nothing but the distribution of the initial noise, leaving the pretrained denoiser frozen. The proposed algorithm, Noise PPO, learns a prompt-conditioned Gaussian policy over starting latents using PPO against a weighted sum of three automated preference and aesthetic scorers (HPSv2, PickScore, LAION aesthetic). On the PartiPrompts and HPSv2 benchmarks, both zero-initialized and non-zero-initialized versions of the policy beat the standard Gaussian baseline on every reported metric. The gains are strongest at 2–4 inference steps and narrow as steps increase, though the non-zero-initialized policy keeps an aesthetic advantage at all step counts. The paper reads this as qualified support for the golden noise hypothesis: learned initial noise helps, but the denoising process gradually washes out its influence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the prompt-conditioned Gaussian noise policy $\pi_\theta(x_0|y)=\mathcal{N}(x_0;\mu_\theta(y),\Sigma_\theta(y))$, implemented as a compact UNet whose two $1\times1$ convolution heads emit the mean and log-variance of the initial latent, together with a small MLP value network. Training is one-step PPO: the prompt is the state, the initial noise is the action, and the reward is a weighted sum of HPSv2, PickScore, and LAION aesthetic scores evaluated on the image produced by the frozen diffusion model, regularized by KL divergence to the standard Gaussian and an entropy bonus. Because the sampler is deterministic, the policy determines the output image, so any measured gain must come from the noise itself rather than from improved denoising. This isolates and tests the golden noise hypothesis directly.

What would settle it

Evaluate Noise PPO on a held-out prompt set with a human-preference judge or a reward model never used in training, at 2 and 8 inference steps; if the learned noise policy does not beat standard Gaussian noise on that unseen judge, the central claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that initial noise alone is a sufficient target for RL fine-tuning. The learned policy $\pi_\theta(x_0|y)=\mathcal{N}(x_0;\mu_\theta(y),\Sigma_\theta(y))$ outputs the mean and variance of the starting latent for a prompt; because the ODE sampler is deterministic, each sampled $x_0$ fixes the final image, so the one-step RL problem reduces to reward-driven noise selection. Noise PPO consistently outscores the frozen LCM baseline on HPSv2, PickScore, and LAION aesthetic across both evaluation benchmarks, and zero-initializing the policy heads—so training starts at the standard Gaussian—is a reliable default. The benefit is most visible at low inference steps and declines as steps grow, which the paper interprets as defining the scope of the golden noise hypothesis: a learned golden noise generator exists and generalizes across step counts, but its influence is bounded by how much iterative denoising overrides the starting point.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three automated reward models used both to train and evaluate Noise PPO (HPSv2, PickScore, and the LAION aesthetic predictor) are valid measures of text-image alignment and sample quality; if these scorers can be gamed, the reported gains may not transfer to human preference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Both zero-initialized and non-zero-initialized Noise PPO beat the frozen LCM baseline on Aesthetic Score, PickScore, HPSv2, and Total Score on PartiPrompts, and on all four HPSv2 subdomains.
  • The gains are largest at 2–4 inference steps and shrink as steps increase, so the practical payoff is greatest for few-step samplers like LCM and SDXL-Turbo.
  • The learned noise policy generalizes to inference step counts it never saw during training, remaining above the standard Gaussian baseline at every step tested.
  • Training needs only prompts, not paired images or preference annotations, because reward signals come from pretrained scorers applied to the final image.
  • Non-zero initialization can yield persistent aesthetic gains even at high steps, indicating the golden noise effect depends on the reward being optimized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because evaluation uses the same reward models that shaped the policy, part of the reported gain may be reward-model exploitation; a human-preference study would likely show a smaller but still positive effect at low steps.
  • The prompt-conditioned Gaussian policy can only shift and rescale the initial latent; it cannot propose qualitatively different noise structures, so the method bounds, rather than fully realizes, the golden noise hypothesis.
  • The persistent aesthetic gain of non-zero initialization hints that aesthetic reward is sensitive to low-frequency content set by the initial noise, which a frequency-domain analysis of learned means could test.
  • A natural extension is to apply the same one-step RL formulation to video or audio diffusion, where the initial latent cost is comparatively small and few-step sampling is common.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Noise PPO, a reinforcement learning method that keeps a pre-trained text-to-image diffusion model frozen and instead learns a prompt-conditioned Gaussian policy over the initial noise vector. The method is framed as a one-step RL problem: the state is the prompt, the action is the initial noise, and the reward is a weighted sum of HPSv2, PickScore, and LAION aesthetic scores on the final image. The policy is trained with PPO plus a KL penalty toward the standard Gaussian and an entropy bonus. Experiments on LCM and SDXL-Turbo evaluate the approach on PartiPrompts and HPSv2 benchmarks, reporting consistent gains over standard Gaussian noise at low inference steps, with diminishing benefits as step counts increase. The paper also compares against DDPO, Diffusion-DPO, DNP, ReNeg, and TextCraftor using results taken from a prior publication.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution: it shows that optimizing only the initial noise distribution, without touching the diffusion model, can improve rewards, and it provides a clean experimental probe of the 'golden noise' hypothesis. The zero-initialization design, the minimal algorithmic machinery (no trajectory storage, no differentiable reward backpropagation), and the held-out prompt benchmarks are strengths. The analysis of how the benefit varies with the number of inference steps is also valuable. However, the central claim that Noise PPO improves text-image alignment and sample quality is currently supported only by the same reward models used during training, which is a significant circularity; independent evaluation is needed before the claim can be accepted. The paper also overstates consistency by omitting the failure case reported in Appendix C.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1] The evaluation is circular: Section 5.1 states 'We evaluate model performance using the same reward functions employed during RL training,' and Section 3 defines the training reward as a weighted sum of exactly the aesthetic score, PickScore, and HPSv2. Since the policy is optimized against these functions, observing improvements on them is expected and does not independently establish improved text-image alignment or sample quality. The abstract and Section 5.2 claim consistent improvement in alignment and quality, but no human evaluation, no held-out reward model, and no distribution-level metric such as FID is reported. Reward overfitting is a concrete risk. Please add at least one independent evaluation (e.g., ImageReward or another reward model not used in training, or a human preference study) and temper the claims accordingly.
  2. [Tables 1 and 2] The comparisons against DDPO, Diffusion-DPO, DNP, ReNeg, and TextCraftor are taken from a different paper ('Results for previous methods are reported from Li et al. [2024b]'), so they are not controlled experiments: the base model, number of inference steps, sampling procedure, and seeds differ. The text's statement that 'Noise PPO achieves leading results' is thus not supported by the presented evidence. These baselines should be rerun in the same LCM/standard-Gaussian pipeline, or the comparative claims should be substantially softened to acknowledge the uncontrolled nature of the comparison.
  3. [Appendix C, Table 4] The claim that both zero- and non-zero-initialized Noise PPO 'consistently outperform the baseline across all evaluation metrics' (Section 5.2) and the abstract's 'consistently improves' are contradicted by Appendix C, Table 4: on SDXL-Turbo/PartiPrompts the non-zero-initialized variant scores below baseline on PickScore (22.328 vs. 22.574) and HPSv2 (28.476 vs. 28.779). The appendix text itself only claims improvement on aesthetic and on two HPSv2 subdomains. The main text must report this failure case or restrict the consistency claim to the LCM setting and the zero-initialized variant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2] There is a typo: 'the RL objecive' should be 'the RL objective'.
  2. [Appendix C, Table 4] The entry '22.600±0008' is missing a decimal point and should read '22.600±0.008'.
  3. [Figures 3 and 4] The shading shows standard deviation over 10 seeds, but no significance tests are reported; at higher inference steps the gaps appear small relative to the spread, so the claim that the benefit 'remains present' should be supported by a statistical test or clearly stated as a trend.
  4. [Section 4] The policy network is described as 'compact,' but it has approximately 187 million parameters. This is smaller than the frozen diffusion model, yet not small in absolute terms; a more neutral wording would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Evaluation uses the exact reward functions optimized during training, so the reported gains in alignment and quality are measured on the fitted objective, not independently verified.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (Reward models) and Section 5.1 (Evaluation metrics)]
    "The reward function combines text–image alignment (using HPSv2 [Wu et al., 2023] and PickScore [Kirstain et al., 2023]) and aesthetic quality (using the LAION aesthetic predictor [Schuhmann et al., 2022]). ... We evaluate model performance using the same reward functions employed during RL training: the LAION aesthetic score [Schuhmann et al., 2022], HPSv2 [Wu et al., 2023], and PickScore [Kirstain et al., 2023]."

    Noise PPO is trained by PPO to maximize R(y,x0) = sum_i w_i R_i(y, Psi(x0,y)), where the R_i are exactly HPSv2, PickScore, and the LAION aesthetic predictor. The paper's central claim that Noise PPO 'consistently improves alignment and sample quality' is then supported by re-measuring those same three functions. Held-out prompts test prompt generalization, but they do not test independence from the training reward; a policy that exploits systematic quirks of these reward models can transfer those quirks across prompts. The reported 'Total Score' is just a sum of the optimized objectives, so the evaluation is effectively a re-scoring of the fitted reward rather than an external validation of text-image alignment or sample quality.

full rationale

The paper contains one clearly identifiable circular-evaluation step: the metrics used to substantiate the central claim are identical to the reward functions maximized during training. This is not a self-citation or definitional equivalence, because the policy is tested on held-out prompt sets (PartiPrompts and HPSv2 benchmark prompts) and at different inference-step counts, so prompt-level generalization is real. However, the claim of improved 'text-image alignment and sample quality' is not independently verified: no human study or held-out reward model is used, and the appendix results even show that non-zero-initialized Noise PPO can lower PickScore and HPSv2 relative to the SDXL-Turbo baseline (Table 4), weakening the 'consistently outperform' statement. The appropriate circularity score is therefore 6: one or more of the paper's headline predictions reduce, in evaluation, to re-measuring the fitted objectives.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the validity of the reward models as proxies for alignment and quality, the determinism of the sampler, and the expressiveness of the Gaussian policy. No new physical entities are introduced. The hand-set reward weights, KL and entropy coefficients, and the choice of 4 training inference steps are the main free parameters that shape the reported claims.

free parameters (6)
  • reward weights w_i = (0.2, 0.4, 0.4) for aesthetic, PickScore, HPSv2
    Hand-chosen combination weights that define the composite training reward. The policy is optimized against this weighted sum, so the reported evaluation on the same weighted metrics is partly a measure of fitting to these weights.
  • KL penalty weight gamma1 = 1.0
    Hand-set in Table 3. Controls how far the learned noise distribution can drift from standard Gaussian, directly shaping the policy and the zero-init behavior.
  • entropy bonus weight gamma2 = 0.1
    Hand-set in Table 3. Encourages exploration in the Gaussian policy and influences the spread of learned noise.
  • PPO epochs K = 4
    Number of PPO update epochs per batch from Algorithm 1 and Table 3.
  • training inference steps = 4
    LCM sampling steps used during training. The paper shows gains are largest at this low step count and diminish at higher steps, so this choice bounds the scope of the claimed improvement.
  • policy output initialization = zero vs random
    The paper tests both. Zero-init produces the most robust results and is recommended as default, while non-zero-init yields higher aesthetic gains. This is a chosen hyperparameter affecting conclusions about the golden noise generator.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Deterministic ODE solver and one-step RL: given prompt y and initial noise x0, the frozen diffusion model produces a unique image x1, so reward is a deterministic function of x0.
    The RL formulation in Section 3 treats the diffusion model as part of the environment and assumes the final reward is fully determined by the initial noise under the chosen LCM sampler. This is true for deterministic samplers but excludes stochastic samplers and limits generality.
  • domain assumption HPSv2, PickScore, and LAION aesthetic predictors are valid proxies for true text-image alignment and sample quality.
    The paper trains on these reward models and uses them as the sole evaluation metrics (Section 5.1). The strength of the central claim depends entirely on these models being reliable indicators of alignment and quality.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gaussian policy family N(mu_theta(y), Sigma_theta(y)) is expressive enough to capture useful 'golden noise' distributions.
    Section 3 models the noise policy as a Gaussian for simplicity; the authors acknowledge in Appendix E this restricts expressiveness. The observed improvements may be limited by this choice.
  • standard math PPO with KL and entropy penalties is a valid optimization procedure for this one-step problem.
    The PPO objective (Eq. 2-4) is standard; no derivation issues.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Minimalist Method for Fine-tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSXSX4Q4

@misc{pith2026250612036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Minimalist Method for Fine-tuning Text-to-Image Diffusion Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSXSX4Q4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12036}
}
read the original abstract

Recent work uses reinforcement learning (RL) to fine-tune text-to-image diffusion models, improving text-image alignment and sample quality. However, existing approaches introduce unnecessary complexity: they cache the full sampling trajectory, depend on differentiable reward models or large preference datasets, or require specialized guidance techniques. Motivated by the "golden noise" hypothesis -- that certain initial noise samples can consistently yield superior alignment -- we introduce Noise PPO, a minimalist RL algorithm that leaves the pre-trained diffusion model entirely frozen and learns a prompt-conditioned initial noise generator. Our approach requires no trajectory storage, reward backpropagation, or complex guidance tricks. Extensive experiments show that optimizing the initial noise distribution consistently improves alignment and sample quality over the original model, with the most significant gains at low inference steps. As the number of inference steps increases, the benefit of noise optimization diminishes but remains present. These findings clarify the scope and limitations of the golden noise hypothesis and reinforce the practical value of minimalist RL fine-tuning for diffusion models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.12036 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We propose Noise PPO, a simple reinforcement learning algorithm for fine-tuning diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Architecture of the policy network: a text embedding obtained from the pre-trained diffusion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Performance on the PartiPrompts benchmark for Aesthetic Score, PickScore, and HPSv2 as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HPSv2 reward as a function of inference steps for four subdomains: Animation, Concept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative visualizations. “Zero Init” denotes experiments where the final output layer is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative comparison. “Zero Init” denotes experiments with zero initialization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Gpt-4 technical report

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774,

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17400,

    Kevin Clark, Paul Vicol, Kevin Swersky, and David J Fleet. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.17400,

    arXiv

  3. [4]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948,

    arXiv

  4. [7]

    Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09991,

    Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Sergey Levine. Planning with diffusion for flexible behavior synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09991,

    arXiv

  5. [8]

    Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07724,

    Tuomas Kynkäänniemi, Miika Aittala, Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, Timo Aila, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Applying guidance in a limited interval improves sample and distribution quality in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07724,

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003,

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

    arXiv

  7. [11]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization.arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101,

    arXiv

  8. [13]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952,

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

    arXiv

Show all 30 references
  1. [14]

    Not all noises are created equally: Diffusion noise selection and optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14041,

    Zipeng Qi, Lichen Bai, Haoyi Xiong, and Zeke Xie. Not all noises are created equally: Diffusion noise selection and optimization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14041,

    arXiv

  2. [15]

    Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms.arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,

    arXiv

  3. [16]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

    11 Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

    arXiv

  4. [19]

    Human preference score v2: A solid benchmark for evaluating human preferences of text-to-image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09341,

    Xiaoshi Wu, Yiming Hao, Keqiang Sun, Yixiong Chen, Feng Zhu, Rui Zhao, and Hongsheng Li. Human preference score v2: A solid benchmark for evaluating human preferences of text-to-image synthesis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09341,

    arXiv

  5. [20]

    Geodiff: A geometric diffusion model for molecular conformation generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02923,

    Minkai Xu, Lantao Yu, Yang Song, Chence Shi, Stefano Ermon, and Jian Tang. Geodiff: A geometric diffusion model for molecular conformation generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.02923,

    arXiv

  6. [21]

    Scaling autoregressive models for content- rich text-to-image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789, 2(3):5,

    Jiahui Yu, Yuanzhong Xu, Jing Yu Koh, Thang Luong, Gunjan Baid, Zirui Wang, Vijay Vasudevan, Alexander Ku, Yinfei Yang, Burcu Karagol Ayan, et al. Scaling autoregressive models for content- rich text-to-image generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10789, 2(3):5,

    arXiv

  7. [22]

    Characteristic guidance: Non-linear correction for ddpm at large guidance scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07586,

    Candi Zheng and Yuan Lan. Characteristic guidance: Non-linear correction for ddpm at large guidance scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.07586,

    arXiv

  8. [23]

    Golden noise for diffusion models: A learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09502,

    Zikai Zhou, Shitong Shao, Lichen Bai, Zhiqiang Xu, Bo Han, and Zeke Xie. Golden noise for diffusion models: A learning framework.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.09502,

    arXiv

  9. [24]

    Training is conducted with a batch size of 16, gradient accumulation over 4 steps, and a fixed learning rate of 1×10 −4

    A Implementation Details TrainingBy default, both the policy and value networks are optimized using the AdamW opti- mizer [Loshchilov and Hutter, 2017] for 10,000 gradient steps, with a weight decay of 1×10 −5 and momentum parameters (0.9,0.999) . Training is conducted with a ...

    2017

  10. [25]

    Algorithm 1:Noise PPO Input:Prompt datasetD, pre-trained text-to-image diffusion modelΨ(·,·;ψ), PPO epochK, hyperparametersγ 1 andγ 2 Initialize policy parametersθand value function parametersϕ repeat θold ←θ Sample a set of promptsy∼ D Sample a set of initial noisex 0 ∼π θold...

    2015

  11. [26]

    As a result, even state-of-the-art generative models can produce outputs that lack sharpness or fail to fully respect their conditioning inputs

    observe that this ELBO objective drives models to cover the entire training distribution, often at the expense of sample fidelity and prompt alignment. As a result, even state-of-the-art generative models can produce outputs that lack sharpness or fail to fully respect their c...

    2022

  12. [27]

    auto-guidance

    show that CFG’s denoising trajectory does not correspond to a valid diffusion toward the true data distribution. To eliminate reliance on CFG, recent work has distilled new conditional models that inherit CFG’s alignment properties [Tang et al., 2025] or employed “auto-guidanc...

    2025

  13. [28]

    Initial noise for diffusion models.Recent studies by Qi et al

    Empirical studies, [Qi et al., 2024, Zhou et al., 2024] indicate that a high cosine similarity between x0 and F(x 0)correlates with improved text-image alignment. Initial noise for diffusion models.Recent studies by Qi et al

    2024

  14. [29]

    show that certain “golden” noise vectors outperform samples drawn uniformly from a standard Gaussian. [Qi et al., 2024] hypothesis that a golden noise x0 should have high cosine similarity with its denoising-inversion mapping F(x 0), but their method requires optimizing the in...

    2024

  15. [30]

    By contrast, our method needs only standard prompt datasets, which are far more readily available, and does not require specialized noise and prompt annotations

    aims to train a neural network to refine initial noise, yet this approach depends on a large paired noise and prompt dataset and supervised learning. By contrast, our method needs only standard prompt datasets, which are far more readily available, and does not require special...

    2024

  16. [1998]

    Diffusion models without classifier-free guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12154,

    Zhicong Tang, Jianmin Bao, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Diffusion models without classifier-free guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12154,

    arXiv

  17. [2015]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020a

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020a. Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic diff...

    2010 arXiv

  18. [2017]

    Lcm-lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556,

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

    arXiv

  19. [2022]

    Classifier-free diffusion guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12598,

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

    arXiv

  20. [2023]

    Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301,

    Kevin Black, Michael Janner, Yilun Du, Ilya Kostrikov, and Sergey Levine. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13301,

    arXiv

  21. [2024]

    Reneg: Learning negative embedding with reward guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19637, 2024a

    Xiaomin Li, Yixuan Liu, Takashi Isobe, Xu Jia, Qinpeng Cui, Dong Zhou, Dong Li, You He, Huchuan Lu, Zhongdao Wang, et al. Reneg: Learning negative embedding with reward guidance.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19637, 2024a. Yanyu Li, Xian Liu, Anil Kag, Ju Hu, Yerlan Idelbayev, Dhri...

    arXiv

  22. [2025]

    Prompt- to-prompt image editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626,

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Prompt- to-prompt image editing with cross attention control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01626,

    arXiv

Pith tools

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