Faster Diffusion Models via Higher-Order Approximation

Gen Li; Yuchen Zhou; Yuting Wei; Yuxin Chen

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Faster Diffusion Models via Higher-Order Approximation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A training-free diffusion sampler reaches ε accuracy with d^{1+2/K}/ε^{1/K} score evaluations, without smoothness assumptions on the target distribution.

desk verdict A genuinely new rate for training-free ODE samplers under mild assumptions, but the central TV bound currently depends on a key lemma whose proof is omitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.24042 v2 pith:IZI7Q24B submitted 2025-06-30 cs.LG cs.NAmath.NAmath.STstat.MLstat.TH

Gen Li , Yuchen Zhou , Yuting Wei , Yuxin Chen This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.NAmath.NAmath.STstat.MLstat.TH MSC 65L0560J6068T07

keywords diffusionmodelsprobabilityflowODEtraining-freeaccelerationhigher-ordersolversLagrangeinterpolationsuccessiverefinementtotalvariationdistancescorefunctionevaluations

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 claims that the probability flow ODE of a diffusion model can be integrated with a fixed-order Lagrange interpolant of the learned score, refined over logarithmically many rounds, to produce samples much faster than standard first-order stepping. Concretely, it proves that a training-free sampler reaches $\varepsilon$ total-variation distance with $\widetilde{O}(d^{1+2/K}\varepsilon^{-1/K})$ score function evaluations for any fixed integer $K>0$, when the score estimates are accurate. The result needs no smoothness or log-concavity assumptions on the data distribution, only polynomially bounded support. The bounds degrade gracefully under inexact score and Jacobian estimates, which matters because real learned scores are never exact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $K$-th order Lagrange interpolating polynomial $\psi_i(\tau)$ applied to the scaled score $(1-\tau)^{-3/2}s_\tau(y_\tau)$ on each time interval $[\tau_{t,K-1},\tau_{t,0}]$, together with its integrals $\gamma_{t,i}(\tau')=\int_{\tau'}^{\tau_{t,0}}\psi_i(\tau)d\tau$ that convert the ODE integral into the closed-form update used in Algorithm 1. Successive refinement re-evaluates the learned score at the current point estimates, so the interpolation error contracts over $N$ rounds. The proof is carried by sharp bounds on the high-order $\tau$-derivatives of the score along the ODE trajectory, by tail bounds for the conditional forward process, and by a Jacobian-error assumption that controls how much the density ratio can shift in each step.

What would settle it

On a target with known density (for example a Gaussian mixture), compute the exact score and its Jacobian, run Algorithm 1 with $K=2$, and measure $\mathrm{TV}(p_{X_1},p_{Y_1})$ as $T$ grows past $C_2 d^2\log^3 T$. If the error does not decay like $O(T^{-2})$ up to logarithmic factors once score and Jacobian errors are numerically negligible, the interpolation-error analysis at the heart of Theorem 1 is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that one step of the probability flow ODE can be replaced by a $K$-point Lagrange interpolation of $(1-\tau)^{-3/2}s_\tau(y_\tau)$, integrated in closed form, and that $N=\lceil C_3\log T\rceil$ rounds of successive refinement make the interpolation nodes accurate enough to preserve the $K$-th order error. Theorem 1 states that Algorithm 1 achieves $\mathrm{TV}(p_{X_1},p_{Y_1}) \le C_1 d^2(d\log^2 T/T)^K\log^2 T + C_1\sqrt{d\log^4 T}\,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{score}} + C_1 d\log^{3/2}T\,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{Jacobi}}$ under the three stated assumptions. With exact scores this translates to $\widetilde{O}(d^{1+2/K}/\varepsilon^{1/K})$ score function evaluations, which the paper contrasts with the $\widetilde{O}(d/\varepsilon)$ rate of a plain discretized probability flow ODE and with prior higher-order analyses that required bounded high-order derivatives of the score estimates.

Load-bearing premise

The theory's main bet is that the derivative of each learned score function stays close, on average along the sampling path, to the true score's derivative; standard score-matching training does not control this Jacobian error, so the promised rates can collapse if that quantity is large.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With exact scores, any fixed integer $K>0$ yields iteration complexity $\widetilde{O}(d^{1+2/K}/\varepsilon^{1/K})$; taking $K$ large makes the $\varepsilon$ dependence almost $\varepsilon^{-1/K}$ and the dimension dependence close to $d^{1+o(1)}$.
The guarantee holds for all target distributions with polynomially bounded support, with no smoothness or log-concavity conditions.
With imperfect scores, the TV error grows at most like $\sqrt{d\log^4 T}\,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{score}} + d\log^{3/2}T\,\varepsilon_{\mathrm{Jacobi}}$, so accuracy degrades proportionally to the score and Jacobian estimation errors.
This breaks the $\widetilde{O}(d/\varepsilon)$ barrier of the plain discretized probability-flow ODE and removes the higher-order smoothness requirement in prior Runge-Kutta analyses.
The paper leaves open whether $K$ can grow with $T$ and whether a stochastic sampler can match the same $\varepsilon$ dependence.

Reading between the lines

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

Because standard score-matching training does not control Jacobian error, a practitioner should measure $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{Jacobi}}$ along the actual sampling trajectory before expecting the promised rates; otherwise the Jacobian term, not the interpolation term, will set the error floor.
The optimal choice of $K$ under a fixed score-evaluation budget is not discussed: since each step costs $K$ evaluations while the interpolation error scales as $(d\log^2 T/T)^K$, the best $K$ should grow slowly with desired accuracy rather than stay a tiny constant.
The same interpolation-plus-refinement machinery could plausibly be grafted onto stochastic (SDE-based) samplers to attack the open question the paper raises; whether the Jacobian assumption can then be dropped is a testable direction.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this paper before you cite it: the main result is a real step forward, but as written the central TV guarantee is not fully proved. The bottleneck is a single deferred lemma, not a technicality.

What is new: the algorithm combines K-point Lagrange interpolation with N ~ log T rounds of successive refinement. The clean claim is that with exact scores, iteration complexity improves to O~(d^{1+2/K}/epsilon^{1/K}) under bounded support and a Jacobian-error assumption, without the higher-order smoothness required by Huang et al. That is new and worth taking seriously.

The analysis is mostly careful. The typical-event structure is well organized: they control the density ratio via Lemma 7, decompose the TV error into good and bad sets (I1 vs I2 U I3 U I4), and the good-set part is worked out in full detail. The dependence on the support radius is only polynomial in T (T^{cR}), which is a genuine improvement over prior RK-type analyses. The graceful degradation with epsilon_score and epsilon_Jacobi terms is also clean.

Now the soft spots.

First and most important: Lemma 11, which bounds the entire contribution from I2 U I3 U I4, is delegated to a reference — “same arguments” as Li et al. (2024c, Lemma 8) — and the proof is omitted. That is not a routine calculation: the bad sets involve the successive-refinement quantity xi_tau, the K-dependent interpolation error, and the Jacobian error epsilon_Jacobi. The cited Lemma 8 was proved for a different sampler and setting, so it does not automatically transfer. Without Lemma 11, the chain (43)+(51)+(56) collapses and Theorem 1 is unsupported.

Second, the abstract states the complexity claim without the T >= C2 d^2 log^3 T floor. The theorem includes it, so the abstract oversells the regime. That is a minor issue by comparison, but it matters for anyone quoting the rate.

Third, Assumption 3 (average squared Jacobian error) is load-bearing. The authors are upfront that pure l2 score error is insufficient for ODE samplers, and they cite a counterexample. Still, learned score networks are not usually trained to control Jacobians, so the practical reach of the theory is unclear. This is a limitation of the approach, not a mathematical flaw, and it is shared by other ODE-sampler analyses.

There is a second smaller omission in the proof of Claim (64b) within Lemma 7 — “we omit the details” — but that looks more like a routine extension.

My recommendation: send this to peer review, with the explicit instruction that the authors must supply a complete proof of Lemma 11. If it goes through, this is a solid contribution to the theory of accelerated diffusion sampling. If not, the field needs to know whether the rate survives without that lemma.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes HEROISM, a training-free higher-order deterministic sampler for diffusion models. The sampler approximates the probability-flow ODE integral by K-point Lagrange interpolation and uses N rounds of successive refinement per step. Under Assumptions 1--3, Theorem 1 bounds the TV distance between the output and target distributions by an interpolation term O(d^2 (d log^2 T / T)^K log^2 T), a score-error term, and a Jacobian-error term; with exact scores this is converted into the iteration complexity eO(d^{1+2/K}/ε^{1/K}), subject to T ≥ C2 d^2 log^3 T and N = ⌈C3 log T⌉. The proof decomposes the TV error into a typical event α1 and a complement α2, and controls each through a sequence of lemmas.

Significance. If the stated theorem is fully proved, the paper would be a meaningful advance in the theory of training-free accelerated diffusion sampling: it analyzes arbitrary constant-order interpolation without smoothness or log-concavity of the target, improves the ε-dependence over prior deterministic samplers, and explicitly tracks score and Jacobian estimation errors. The exposition is careful about stating assumptions and constants, and it correctly acknowledges the known counterexample showing that ℓ2 score error alone cannot suffice for ODE-based samplers. The main caveats are that several load-bearing proofs are currently deferred, and that the claimed complexity is not valid in all regimes because of the T ≥ C2 d^2 log^3 T constraint.

major comments (4)

[B.8 / Step 4, Eq. (55)] Lemma 11 is load-bearing and its proof is omitted. The entire bound on α2 in Step 4 rests on Eq. (55); without it the chain (43)+(51)+(56) collapses and Theorem 1's TV bound (17) is unsupported. Section B.8 says only 'We can prove Lemma 11 by using same arguments in the proof of Li et al. (2024c, Lemma 8) and we omit the details here.' This is not a routine calculation, since the sets I2--I4 in (52)--(54) involve the successive-refinement quantity ξτ, the K-dependent interpolation error, and ε_Jacobi, which are not present in the cited Lemma 8's setting. Please provide a complete proof or an explicit reduction with all necessary modifications.
[A (proof of Lemma 7)] The proof of Lemma 7, which is central to the density-ratio bound (39), itself defers a key technical claim: after proving (64a), the text says 'Claim (64b) can be proved by using similar arguments. We omit the details here for the sake of brevity.' Claim (64b) controls the high-order derivatives of the Jacobian-transport quantity and is used in the derivation of (66) and hence in (71). Similarly, Lemma 3's bound (28) is deferred in B.2 ('we omit the details for brevity') and is used inside the same argument. These omissions should be filled or clearly relocated to an appendix.
[4.2, Eq. (18)] The stated iteration complexity eO(d^{1+2/K}/ε^{1/K}) ignores the constraint T ≥ C2 d^2 log^3 T. Since Algorithm 1 uses eO(T) score evaluations, the actual guarantee is eO(T) with T satisfying both T ≥ C2 d^2 log^3 T and the interpolation bound d^2 (d log^2 T / T)^K log^2 T ≤ ε, i.e., eO(max{d^2 log^3 T, d^{1+2/K} ε^{-1/K}}). In particular, for K large or ε not very small, the d^2 log^3 T term dominates and the abstract's 'as small as eO(d^{1+2/K} ε^{-1/K})' is not a valid claim. This should be corrected or qualified.
[4.1, Assumption 3] The Jacobian-error assumption is load-bearing: it is exactly what makes the ODE analysis work, and the paper itself notes that ℓ2 score error alone is insufficient (Li et al. 2023). However, the abstract's claim of 'without demanding higher-order smoothness on the score estimates' may mislead, because Assumption 3 requires continuous differentiability and an average squared spectral-norm Jacobian error bound, i.e., a first-order derivative condition. Moreover, score networks are not typically trained to control ε_Jacobi. Please state this limitation explicitly in the introduction/abstract and, if possible, discuss how ε_Jacobi can be bounded or estimated for common network architectures.

minor comments (6)

[Assumption 1] Assumption 1 contains a typo: 'X0 ∼ ppdata' should be 'X0 ∼ pdata'.
[Theorem 1 / Section 3] In the statement of Theorem 1 and Section 3, K is described as 'an arbitrary fixed integer' but also written 'K > 0'; please specify K ≥ 1 and clarify the K=1 case.
[Algorithm 1] The acronym HEROISM is used in Algorithm 1 without definition; spell it out at first use.
[Lemma 5] In the text preceding Lemma 5, 'the the distributions' should be 'the distributions'.
[Section 5.3] The text contains 'defition' instead of 'definition'.
[B.8] The citation 'Li et al. (2024c, Lemma 8)' is to an arXiv preprint; please state the lemma's statement in the appendix so the transfer argument is self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Theorem 1 is a new higher-order ODE sampler bound; the omitted proof of Lemma 11 is a proof gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's main result is a new convergence theorem for a new algorithm (HEROISM), and the derivation does not fit any parameter to the target result. Theorem 1's TV bound is an upper bound in terms of T, K, epsilon_score, and epsilon_Jacobi; these error terms are assumptions (Assumptions 2 and 3), not fitted values, and the bound is not obtained by renaming a known empirical pattern. The proof is largely self-contained, with novel estimates (Lemma 7, Lemmas 8-10) proved in the appendix. The one important caveat is Section B.8: Lemma 11, which controls the complement events I2 union I3 union I4 and is essential for Step 4 of Theorem 1, is not proved; the paper says 'We can prove Lemma 11 by using same arguments in the proof of Li et al. (2024c, Lemma 8) and we omit the details here for the sake of brevity.' This is a load-bearing proof gap and a same-author citation, but it is not circularity: Lemma 11 is not defined in terms of the target bound, and the cited Lemma 8 is a prior result for a different sampler/setting that does not assume Theorem 1. The central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction, and no prediction reduces to a fit. The unproved lemma lowers proof completeness but does not make the derivation circular; hence the low score.

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

No free parameters are fitted to data; the order K and the refinement count N are algorithmic choices, and constants in the bounds are universal. The central claim depends on three distributional/estimation assumptions plus a particular noise schedule, and on two technical lemmas borrowed from the authors' own prior work. This is modest external baggage for a theory paper in this area.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Assumption 1: target distribution p_data is supported in a Euclidean ball of radius T^{c_R} with probability 1, for an arbitrarily large constant c_R.
Used to provide tail bounds for X0 conditioned on Xτ (Lemma 2) and to control log-density ratios throughout the proof.
domain assumption Assumption 2: average squared ℓ2 score estimation error over all steps, times, and rounds is bounded by ε_score^2.
Measures the quality of the learned score function; appears linearly (in squared-root form) in the final TV bound.
domain assumption Assumption 3: average squared Jacobian error of the score estimates is bounded by ε_Jacobi^2.
Load-bearing for ODE-based samplers; without it, the paper argues a counterexample prevents any no-smoothness result. The assumption is not verified for neural score networks.
domain assumption Noise schedule (16a)-(16b): β1 = 1 - α1 = T^{-c0}, and βt grows exponentially then is capped at 1, with large universal constants c0, c1.
The proof requires the specific two-phase schedule (consistent with Benton et al. 2024 and Li et al. 2024c) to control discretization errors and the initialization gap.
standard math Lemma 2 (tail bounds for X0 | Xτ) and Lemma 5 (TV(X_T, Y_T)) are imported verbatim from Li et al. (2024c), whose authors overlap with the present paper.
These are background technical results used as black boxes; they are not the target result, but the present paper does not re-derive them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Faster Diffusion Models via Higher-Order Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IZI7Q24B

@misc{pith2026250624042,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Faster Diffusion Models via Higher-Order Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IZI7Q24B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.24042}
}

abstract

In this paper, we explore provable acceleration of diffusion models without any additional retraining. Focusing on the task of approximating a target data distribution in $\mathbb{R}^d$ to within $\varepsilon$ total-variation distance, we propose a principled, training-free sampling algorithm that requires only the order of $$ d^{1+2/K} \varepsilon^{-1/K} $$ score function evaluations (up to log factor) in the presence of accurate scores, where $K>0$ is an arbitrary fixed integer. This result applies to a broad class of target data distributions, without the need for assumptions such as smoothness or log-concavity. Our theory is robust vis-a-vis inexact score estimation, degrading gracefully as the score estimation error increases -- without demanding higher-order smoothness on the score estimates as assumed in previous work. The proposed algorithm draws insight from high-order ODE solvers, leveraging high-order Lagrange interpolation and successive refinement to approximate the integral derived from the probability flow ODE. More broadly, our work develops a theoretical framework towards understanding the efficacy of high-order methods for accelerated sampling.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Exact simulation of diffusions and improved algorithms for log-concave sampling
cs.DS 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Path-space rejection sampling with unbiased Girsanov ratio estimators yields log-concave samplers with O-tilde(kappa^{2/3} d^{1/3}) queries, improving prior kappa d^{1/2} MALA complexity.
Provable diffusion-based posterior sampling for linear inverse problems via DDIM
cs.LG 2026-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

A SVD-based, coordinate-wise DDIM sampler is claimed to asymptotically sample from the posterior for noisy linear inverse problems, but the proof's posterior identification step does not follow from the stated updates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Anderson, B. D. (1982). Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 12(3):313--326

work page 1982
[2]

Azangulov, I., Deligiannidis, G., and Rousseau, J. (2024). Convergence of diffusion models under the manifold hypothesis in high-dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18804

arXiv 2024
[3]

D., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G

Benton, J., Bortoli, V. D., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G. (2024). Nearly d -linear convergence bounds for diffusion models via stochastic localization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2024
[4]

and Li, G

Cai, C. and Li, G. (2025). Minimax optimality of the probability flow ode for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09583

arXiv 2025
[5]

Chen, H., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2023a). Improved analysis of score-based generative modeling: User-friendly bounds under minimal smoothness assumptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4735--4763. PMLR

work page 2023
[6]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Lee, H., Li, Y., Lu, J., and Salim, A. (2023b). The probability flow ODE is provably fast. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11798

work page Pith review arXiv 2023
[7]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Salim, A., and Zhang, A. R. (2022). Sampling is as easy as learning the score: theory for diffusion models with minimal data assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11215

arXiv 2022
[8]

Chen, S., Daras, G., and Dimakis, A. G. (2023c). Restoration-degradation beyond linear diffusions: A non-asymptotic analysis for DDIM -type samplers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03384

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 54 references

[9]

Cheng, X., Lu, J., Tan, Y., and Xie, Y. (2023). Convergence of flow-based generative models via proximal gradient descent in wasserstein space. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17582

2023 arXiv
[10]

T., and Shah, M

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

2023
[11]

Efron, B. (2011). Tweedie's formula and selection bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association , 106(496):1602--1614

2011
[12]

and Zhu, L

Gao, X. and Zhu, L. (2024). Convergence analysis for general probability flow odes of diffusion models in wasserstein distances. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17958

2024 arXiv
[13]

Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M., Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., Courville, A., and Bengio, Y. (2020). Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM , 63(11):139--144

2020
[14]

Haussmann, U. G. and Pardoux, E. (1986). Time reversal of diffusions. The Annals of Probability , pages 1188--1205

1986
[15]

Ho, J., Jain, A., and Abbeel, P. (2020). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:6840--6851

2020
[16]

Z., Huang, J., and Lin, Z

Huang, D. Z., Huang, J., and Lin, Z. (2024a). Convergence analysis of probability flow ode for score-based generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.09730

2024 arXiv
[17]

Z., Huang, J., and Lin, Z

Huang, D. Z., Huang, J., and Lin, Z. (2025). Fast convergence for high-order ode solvers in diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.13061

2025 arXiv
[18]

Huang, Z., Wei, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024b). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models are optimally adaptive to unknown low dimensionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18784

2024
[19]

Ipsen, I. C. and Rehman, R. (2008). Perturbation bounds for determinants and characteristic polynomials. SIAM Journal on Matrix Analysis and Applications , 30(2):762--776

2008
[20]

and Li, G

Jiao, Y. and Li, G. (2024). Instance-dependent convergence theory for diffusion models. arXiv e-prints , pages arXiv--2410

2024
[21]

Jolicoeur-Martineau, A., Li, K., Pich \'e -Taillefer, R., Kachman, T., and Mitliagkas, I. (2021). Gotta go fast when generating data with score-based models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.14080

2021 arXiv
[22]

Kingma, D. P. and Welling, M. (2013). Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114

2013 arXiv
[23]

Lee, H., Lu, J., and Tan, Y. (2023). Convergence of score-based generative modeling for general data distributions. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 946--985

2023
[24]

and Cai, C

Li, G. and Cai, C. (2024). Provable acceleration for diffusion models under minimal assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23285

2024 arXiv
[25]

Li, G., Cai, C., and Wei, Y. (2025). Dimension-free convergence of diffusion models for approximate G aussian mixtures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05300

2025 arXiv
[26]

Li, G., Huang, Y., Efimov, T., Wei, Y., Chi, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024a). Accelerating convergence of score-based diffusion models, provably. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.03852

2024 arXiv
[27]

Li, G., Huang, Z., and Wei, Y. (2024b). Towards a mathematical theory for consistency training in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07802

2024 arXiv
[28]

and Jiao, Y

Li, G. and Jiao, Y. (2024). Improved convergence rate for diffusion probabilistic models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations

2024
[29]

Li, G., Wei, Y., Chen, Y., and Chi, Y. (2023). Towards faster non-asymptotic convergence for diffusion-based generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09251

2023 arXiv
[30]

Li, G., Wei, Y., Chi, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024c). A sharp convergence theory for the probability flow ODE s of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02320

2024 arXiv
[31]

and Yan, Y

Li, G. and Yan, Y. (2024a). Adapting to unknown low-dimensional structures in score-based diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14861

2024 arXiv
[32]

and Yan, Y

Li, G. and Yan, Y. (2024b). O(d/T) convergence theory for diffusion probabilistic models under minimal assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18959

2024 arXiv
[33]

Li, R., Di, Q., and Gu, Q. (2024d). Unified convergence analysis for score-based diffusion models with deterministic samplers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14237

2024 arXiv
[34]

Liang, J., Huang, Z., and Chen, Y. (2025). Low-dimensional adaptation of diffusion models: Convergence in total variation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12982

2025 arXiv
[35]

Liang, Y., Ju, P., Liang, Y., and Shroff, N. (2024). Broadening target distributions for accelerated diffusion models via a novel analysis approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13901

2024 arXiv
[36]

Liu, X., Wu, L., Ye, M., and Liu, Q. (2022). Let us build bridges: Understanding and extending diffusion generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.14699

2022 arXiv
[37]

Lu, C., Zhou, Y., Bao, F., Chen, J., Li, C., and Zhu, J. (2022). Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:5775--5787

2022
[38]

and Luhman, T

Luhman, E. and Luhman, T. (2021). Knowledge distillation in iterative generative models for improved sampling speed. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.02388

2021 arXiv
[39]

Meng, C., Rombach, R., Gao, R., Kingma, D., Ermon, S., Ho, J., and Salimans, T. (2023). On distillation of guided diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 14297--14306

2023
[40]

Nichol, A. Q. and Dhariwal, P. (2021). Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In International conference on machine learning , pages 8162--8171. PMLR

2021
[41]

Potaptchik, P., Azangulov, I., and Deligiannidis, G. (2024). Linear convergence of diffusion models under the manifold hypothesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09046

2024 arXiv
[42]

and Ho, J

Salimans, T. and Ho, J. (2022). Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2022
[43]

Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E., Maheswaranathan, N., and Ganguli, S. (2015). Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2256--2265

2015
[44]

Song, J., Meng, C., and Ermon, S. (2020). Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502

2020 arXiv
[45]

Song, Y., Dhariwal, P., Chen, M., and Sutskever, I. (2023). Consistency models

2023
[46]

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

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

2021
[47]

and Yan, Y

Tang, J. and Yan, Y. (2025). Adaptivity and convergence of probability flow odes in diffusion generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.18863

2025 arXiv
[48]

and Zhao, H

Tang, W. and Zhao, H. (2024). Score-based diffusion models via stochastic differential equations--a technical tutorial. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07487

2024 arXiv
[49]

Wu, Y., Chen, Y., and Wei, Y. (2024). Stochastic runge-kutta methods: Provable acceleration of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04760

2024 arXiv
[50]

Xue, S., Yi, M., Luo, W., Zhang, S., Sun, J., Li, Z., and Ma, Z.-M. (2024). Sa-solver: Stochastic adams solver for fast sampling of diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

2024
[51]

Yang, L., Zhang, Z., Song, Y., Hong, S., Xu, R., Zhao, Y., Zhang, W., Cui, B., and Yang, M.-H. (2023). Diffusion models: A comprehensive survey of methods and applications. ACM Computing Surveys , 56(4):1--39

2023
[52]

and Chen, Y

Zhang, Q. and Chen, Y. (2023). Fast sampling of diffusion models with exponential integrator. In International Conference on Learning Representations

2023
[53]

Zhao, W., Bai, L., Rao, Y., Zhou, J., and Lu, J. (2024). Unipc: A unified predictor-corrector framework for fast sampling of diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

2024
[54]

Zheng, K., Lu, C., Chen, J., and Zhu, J. (2023). Dpm-solver-v3: Improved diffusion ode solver with empirical model statistics. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36:55502--55542

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Anderson, B. D. (1982). Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications , 12(3):313--326

work page 1982

[2] [2]

Azangulov, I., Deligiannidis, G., and Rousseau, J. (2024). Convergence of diffusion models under the manifold hypothesis in high-dimensions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18804

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

D., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G

Benton, J., Bortoli, V. D., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G. (2024). Nearly d -linear convergence bounds for diffusion models via stochastic localization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2024

[4] [4]

and Li, G

Cai, C. and Li, G. (2025). Minimax optimality of the probability flow ode for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09583

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Chen, H., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2023a). Improved analysis of score-based generative modeling: User-friendly bounds under minimal smoothness assumptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4735--4763. PMLR

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Lee, H., Li, Y., Lu, J., and Salim, A. (2023b). The probability flow ODE is provably fast. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11798

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Salim, A., and Zhang, A. R. (2022). Sampling is as easy as learning the score: theory for diffusion models with minimal data assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11215

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Chen, S., Daras, G., and Dimakis, A. G. (2023c). Restoration-degradation beyond linear diffusions: A non-asymptotic analysis for DDIM -type samplers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03384

work page Pith review arXiv 2023