pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.03111 · v1 · pith:FAQI4YMWnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 💻 cs.CV

Inverting the Generation Process of Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models: Empirical Evaluation and a Novel Method

Yan Zeng , Masanori Suganuma , Takayuki Okatani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 10:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords DDIM inversionlatent recoverydiffusion modelsimage reconstructionfixed-point iterationgradient descentself-interpolation testinitial noise map
0
0 comments X

The pith

A hybrid method using gradient descent on the first DDIM inversion step followed by fixed-point iteration recovers the true initial noise map more accurately than existing techniques.

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

The paper examines the task of inverting DDIM generation to recover the initial noise latent from a produced image. Existing inversion approaches often reconstruct the image well yet fail to match the true starting noise. The authors introduce a hybrid procedure that applies gradient descent only to the first step and fixed-point iteration to the rest, along with a self-interpolation test that checks whether interpolated latents between true and predicted maps still generate coherent images. Experiments on three datasets show the hybrid method reduces error in the recovered initial latent and improves reconstruction fidelity while passing the new test where baselines do not.

Core claim

The authors claim that their hybrid inversion procedure recovers the initial latent noise map of DDIM-generated images with lower error than direct inversion or other baselines, while also delivering higher reconstruction accuracy; this is confirmed by a new self-interpolation test in which images generated from points between the true and predicted latents remain high quality only when the predicted latent is close to the true one.

What carries the argument

hybrid inversion procedure that performs gradient descent on the first inversion step and fixed-point iteration on all subsequent steps

If this is right

  • Existing inversion methods achieve reasonable image reconstruction but produce initial latents that fail the self-interpolation test.
  • The hybrid method outperforms all tested baselines on reconstruction error, initial latent error, and the self-interpolation test across three datasets.
  • Accurate recovery of the initial noise map supports improved image editing and generation applications that rely on starting from the correct latent.
  • The self-interpolation test exposes limitations in initial-latent prediction that standard reconstruction metrics miss.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the hybrid procedure generalizes beyond the tested datasets, it could allow diffusion-based editing tools to start edits from a noise map that is verifiably close to the one that produced the original image.
  • The self-interpolation test could be adapted to other generative models to check whether their inversion methods recover semantically meaningful starting points.
  • Convergence of the fixed-point steps may slow or diverge for images with complex textures, suggesting a need to test the method on higher-resolution or out-of-distribution data.

Load-bearing premise

The hybrid procedure will converge to a latent close to the true initial noise map for arbitrary generated images.

What would settle it

Running the hybrid method on a held-out set of DDIM-generated images and finding that the L2 distance between its predicted initial latent and the true initial noise is no smaller than the distance produced by direct inversion or other baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.03111 by Masanori Suganuma, Takayuki Okatani, Yan Zeng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: DDIM generation process (F : xT → x0) and its inver￾sion (F : x0 → xˆT ). U-Net (or a similar model), an image x0 ∼ p(x) can be generated from any sampled noise image xT . The noisy images xt (for t ̸= 0) in the intermediate steps of the denoising process affect the final generated image x0 and can be considered its latent variables. Understanding the relationship between these latent variables and the gen… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Illustration of the three employed metrics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: These histograms are derived from the results in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The leftmost column shows the generated image and its initial latent map. The subsequent columns display the predicted latent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstructed images and predicted latent by the com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reconstructed images for standard reconstruction and self-interpolation. Left: Images reconstructed from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper studies the problem of inverting the DDIM image generation process to recover latent variables, particularly the initial noise map, from a generated image. Existing methods often struggle with accuracy in this task. We propose a novel hybrid approach that combines direct inversion via gradient descent for the first step, followed by a fixed-point method for subsequent steps. Empirical evaluations across three datasets demonstrate that our method significantly improves the prediction of initial latent variables while achieving superior reconstruction accuracy. Additionally, we introduce a new evaluation, called the self-interpolation test, which assesses the quality of images generated from interpolated points between the true and predicted latent maps, offering deeper insights into performance. Our results reveal that while existing methods perform reasonably well in reconstruction, they consistently fail to accurately predict the initial latent variables, resulting in poor performance on the self-interpolation test. In contrast, our method outperforms all others across all metrics, providing valuable insights into diffusion models and enhancing their applications in image generation and editing.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies inversion of the DDIM sampling process to recover the initial noise map z_T from a generated image. It proposes a hybrid inversion procedure that applies gradient descent on the first step and fixed-point iteration on subsequent steps. On three datasets the method is reported to outperform prior inversion techniques in both reconstruction fidelity and accuracy of the recovered initial latent; a new self-interpolation test is introduced in which existing methods fail while the proposed method succeeds.

Significance. If the reported empirical gains prove robust, the hybrid inversion technique and the self-interpolation diagnostic could be useful for downstream editing and analysis tasks that rely on accurate latent recovery in diffusion models. The work is primarily empirical; no parameter-free derivation or convergence guarantee is claimed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / Method description] The central empirical claim—that the hybrid GD + fixed-point procedure recovers an initial latent sufficiently close to the true z_T to improve downstream metrics—rests on an unanalyzed assumption. The manuscript provides no convergence analysis, Lipschitz bounds, or step-size conditions for the fixed-point iteration, leaving open whether the procedure succeeds for arbitrary generated images rather than the three evaluated datasets.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'significantly improves' prediction of initial latents, yet no error bars, number of runs, or statistical tests are mentioned. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported gains are stable or sensitive to hyper-parameter choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. Specify the exact datasets, image resolutions, and number of diffusion steps used in the experiments so that the results can be reproduced.
  2. Clarify how the self-interpolation test is quantified (e.g., perceptual metrics or pixel-wise error) and whether the interpolation is performed in latent space or pixel space.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the referee's comments. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Method description] The central empirical claim—that the hybrid GD + fixed-point procedure recovers an initial latent sufficiently close to the true z_T to improve downstream metrics—rests on an unanalyzed assumption. The manuscript provides no convergence analysis, Lipschitz bounds, or step-size conditions for the fixed-point iteration, leaving open whether the procedure succeeds for arbitrary generated images rather than the three evaluated datasets.

    Authors: We concur that our work is empirical in nature and does not provide a theoretical convergence analysis or Lipschitz bounds for the fixed-point iteration. The manuscript explicitly positions itself as an empirical evaluation, as reflected in the title and abstract. We will revise the discussion section to explicitly state the empirical scope, note the absence of theoretical guarantees, and discuss the step-size selection based on validation performance on the evaluated datasets. This addresses the concern by clarifying the claims' scope. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract states that the method 'significantly improves' prediction of initial latents, yet no error bars, number of runs, or statistical tests are mentioned. Without these, it is impossible to judge whether the reported gains are stable or sensitive to hyper-parameter choices.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and results section would benefit from reporting the number of experimental runs, error bars, and statistical significance. We will update the manuscript to include these details: specifically, we ran experiments over 5 random seeds per dataset, and will add error bars to the reported metrics along with p-values from paired t-tests where comparisons are made. This will strengthen the presentation of the empirical gains. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical method proposal with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper proposes a hybrid inversion procedure (gradient descent on the first DDIM step followed by fixed-point iteration) and reports empirical improvements on reconstruction and self-interpolation metrics across three datasets. No derivation chain, uniqueness theorem, or first-principles claim is advanced that reduces by construction to fitted parameters or self-citations. The central results are performance numbers obtained from running the method on held-out generated images; these are falsifiable against external baselines and do not rely on any equation that equates the output to its own inputs. The work is therefore self-contained as an empirical study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The method implicitly assumes convergence of the fixed-point iteration and that the three evaluation datasets are representative.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5706 in / 1058 out tokens · 21968 ms · 2026-06-28T10:48:36.521464+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images

    Omri Avrahami, Dani Lischinski, and Ohad Fried. Blended diffusion for text-driven editing of natural images. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 18208–18218, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [2]

    Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance

    Guillaume Couairon, Jakob Verbeek, Holger Schwenk, and Matthieu Cord. Diffedit: Diffusion-based semantic image editing with mask guidance. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 1

    2023

  3. [3]

    Renoise: Real image inversion through iterative noising,

    Daniel Garibi, Or Patashnik, Andrey V oynov, Hadar Averbuch-Elor, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Renoise: Real im- age inversion through iterative noising.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14602, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 6

    work page arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control

    Amir Hertz, Ron Mokady, Jay Tenenbaum, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-or. Prompt-to-prompt image editing with cross-attention control. InThe Eleventh Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 1

    2020

  6. [6]

    Diffu- sionclip: Text-guided diffusion models for robust image ma- nipulation

    Gwanghyun Kim, Taesung Kwon, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffu- sionclip: Text-guided diffusion models for robust image ma- nipulation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2426–2435,

  7. [7]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 3730–3738, 2015. 5

    2015

  8. [8]

    Understanding deep image representations by inverting them

    Aravindh Mahendran and Andrea Vedaldi. Understanding deep image representations by inverting them. InProceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5188–5196, 2015. 3

    2015

  9. [9]

    Fixed-point inversion for text-to- image diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12540,

    Barak Meiri, Dvir Samuel, Nir Darshan, Gal Chechik, Shai Avidan, and Rami Ben-Ari. Fixed-point inversion for text-to- image diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12540,

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions

    Chenlin Meng, Yutong He, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, Jia- jun Wu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Stefano Ermon. SDEdit: Guided image synthesis and editing with stochastic differential equa- tions. InInternational Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  11. [11]

    Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models

    Ron Mokady, Amir Hertz, Kfir Aberman, Yael Pritch, and Daniel Cohen-Or. Null-text inversion for editing real im- ages using guided diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 6038–6047, 2023. 1

    2023

  12. [12]

    Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Alexander Quinn Nichol and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved denoising diffusion probabilistic models. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8162–8171. PMLR,

  13. [13]

    Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion

    Zhihong Pan, Riccardo Gherardi, Xiufeng Xie, and Stephen Huang. Effective real image editing with accelerated iter- ative diffusion inversion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 15912– 15921, 2023. 2, 3, 4, 6

    2023

  14. [14]

    Zero-shot image-to-image translation

    Gaurav Parmar, Krishna Kumar Singh, Richard Zhang, Yijun Li, Jingwan Lu, and Jun-Yan Zhu. Zero-shot image-to-image translation. InACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceed- ings, pages 1–11, 2023. 1, 2, 4, 6

    2023

  15. [15]

    High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Bj ¨orn Ommer. High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022. 2, 4

    2022

  16. [16]

    Denois- ing diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denois- ing diffusion implicit models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 1, 2, 3, 6

    2021

  17. [17]

    Dual diffusion implicit bridges for image-to-image transla- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08382, 2022

    Xuan Su, Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Dual diffusion implicit bridges for image-to-image transla- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.08382, 2022. 2

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Sampling Generative Networks

    Tom White. Sampling generative networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04468, 2016. 5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    LSUN: Construction of a Large-scale Image Dataset using Deep Learning with Humans in the Loop

    Fisher Yu, Ari Seff, Yinda Zhang, Shuran Song, Thomas Funkhouser, and Jianxiong Xiao. Lsun: Construction of a large-scale image dataset using deep learning with humans in the loop.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.03365, 2015. 5

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015