Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Reward gradients added to a discrete diffusion model's predicted logits steer generation toward desired properties with no retraining — frequently outperforming fine-tuning on DNA, protein, and molecule tasks.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

GILC guides discrete diffusion at inference time by adding reward gradients to the prediction logits, matching or beating fine-tuned baselines on DNA, protein, and molecule generation tasks without retraining.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful empirical method with an overclaimed theory: the logit-correction 'equivalence' rests on an unproven Jacobian-free substitution and a mask-state mismatch. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.06303 v2 pith:4C5W4B6K submitted 2026-06-04 cs.LG cs.AI

Plug-and-Play Guidance for Discrete Diffusion Models via Gradient-Informed Logit Correction

Hongkun Dou , Zike Chen , Fengji Li , Hongjue Li , Yue Deng This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.AI
keywords GILCdiscrete diffusion modelstraining-free guidancelogit correctionvariational proxyreward-guided generationGumbel-Softmaxbiomolecular sequence design
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

GILC aims to settle a practical question: can a pretrained discrete diffusion model be steered toward a new objective at sampling time, without fine-tuning, without a trained classifier, and without particle-filtering overhead? The paper's answer is a single correction rule — take the reward gradient with respect to the model's clean-prediction logits and add it, scaled by 1/β, before sampling the next state. Two ideas make this work: the frozen denoising network is re-read as a variational proxy for the expected-reward value function, and the numerically unstable Jacobian through the noisy input is deliberately dropped. The reported result is controlled generation that matches or beats fine-tuning approaches on regulatory DNA, protein stability, and small-molecule tasks, with far fewer model calls. If the framework holds, any discrete diffusion or flow model becomes a steerable generator for biology and chemistry objectives at inference time.

Core claim

GILC's central claim: in absorbing-state discrete diffusion, the reward-tilted reverse process p^r(z_s|z_t) ∝ p(z_s|z_t) exp(v(z_s)/β) is realized by one Jacobian-free step — compute the reward gradient g_η w.r.t. the clean-prediction logits η (via Gumbel-Softmax and Straight-Through), set η^r = η + g_η/β, and sample the next state from q(z_s|z_t, softmax(η^r)). Because the denoising network already minimizes the objective needed to act as a mean-field variational proxy for v(z_t) ≈ E[r(x)], no training is required, and Monte Carlo averaging sharpens noisy value estimates. Experiments report top training-free numbers and frequent wins over the fine-tuning baseline on DNA and protein design,

What carries the argument

Central mechanism: the logit-correction rule η^r = η + g_η/β. η is the frozen denoiser's clean-prediction logits; g_η is the reward gradient backpropagated through a Gumbel-Softmax/Straight-Through sample; sampling then draws q(z_s|z_t, softmax(η^r)). Two supports: (1) variational proxy — the training loss is a negative log-likelihood, so the Softmax output acts as a mean-field approximation to p_θ(x|z_t), making v(z_t) ≈ (1/n)Σ r(x^(i)) estimable by Monte Carlo; (2) Jacobian-free gradient — ∂η/∂z_t is dropped due to ill-conditioning (condition number ≈10^4–10^5), unlike the logit-space gradient, which stays stable. Non-differentiable rewards are handled by a policy-gradient variant with gro

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reward-tilted optimal reverse process is implemented by adding the logit-space reward gradient g_η/β to the clean-prediction logits — Appendix B.2 substitutes this logit gradient where the Taylor expansion calls for the value gradient with respect to the noisy state without proving the two agree — so if that substitution fails, GILC is a stable heuristic rather than a sampler for its stated target distribution.

What would settle it

A small-scale test would settle the central claim: choose an absorbing-state discrete diffusion model small enough to enumerate all possible z_s, compute the exact reward-tilted posterior p^r(z_s|z_t) ∝ p(z_s|z_t) exp(v(z_s)/β) by exhaustive summation over v(z_s) = β log E[exp(r(x)/β)], and compare it with GILC's proposal q(z_s|z_t, softmax(η + g_η/β)) across a range of β. If the total-variation distance between the two does not decrease as the proxy improves (a better x_θ or more Monte Carlo samples), the equivalence at the center of the paper fails, and the gains should be attributed to the

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A pretrained absorbing-state discrete diffusion or flow model becomes a steerable generator for any new objective at inference time: no parameter updates, no classifier training, and no paired data, so the same model can serve many reward functions in sequence.
  • The cost structure changes sharply: in the DNA experiments GILC-DB needs one diffusion call and five reward calls per sampling step, whereas the main training-free baselines maintain twenty trajectories; guidance therefore scales to longer sequences and tighter compute budgets.
  • Black-box rewards become first-class citizens: the policy-gradient variant needs only reward values, so experimental assays, simulators, or learned predictors that are not differentiable can drive generation directly.
  • Because correction happens in logit space rather than noisy-input space, the guidance signal avoids the ill-conditioned Jacobian of the denoiser, which the paper documents as condition numbers near 10^4–10^5; the method therefore transfers to large discrete spaces, demonstrated on class-conditional CIFAR-10 and text-to-image generation.
  • If the Appendix B.2 equivalence holds, GILC is not a loose heuristic but an implementation of the exact reward-tilted optimal reverse process at the cost of a single forward-backward pass — the target that SMC and importance-sampling methods approximate with far more computation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The equivalence in Appendix B.2 substitutes the logit-space gradient g_η where the Taylor expansion calls for the value gradient ∇_z_t v(z_t), and the equality is asserted rather than derived; if the two gradients coincide only for special rewards (e.g., rewards nearly linear in predicted probabilities), GILC is best understood as an SDS-style heuristic whose empirical record stands apart from its
  • The schedule insight — spend the reward-evaluation budget early, when value estimates are noisiest — is presented as an implementation detail but is a general principle that could be ported to candidate-based baselines; re-running SMC or SVDD with the same exponential decay schedule would isolate how much of GILC's gain comes from the schedule versus the logit correction.
  • Because the correction is additive in logit space, multi-objective guidance is a free operation: sum g_η contributions from several rewards with appropriate scales and steer DNA, protein, or molecule generation toward several properties at once — a testable extension the paper does not run.
  • The mean-field proxy that the paper flags as a limitation for language (Sec. 5) suggests a stress test: replace the one-step variational proxy with a few unrolled denoising steps before estimating the reward, and check whether the logit correction still beats deterministic value estimates on highly correlated sequences. One manuscript-level note: the ESMFold entry in Appendix C.3 still carries an
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Gradient-Informed Logit Correction (GILC), a training-free guidance method for discrete diffusion and discrete flow models. The authors replace the expensive value-function gradient with a gradient of the reward with respect to the clean-prediction logits, obtained either by straight-through Gumbel-Softmax backpropagation (GILC-DB) or by a policy-gradient/GRPO-style estimator (GILC-PG). The corrected logits η^r = η + g_η/β are fed into the standard posterior q(z_s|z_t, x^r_θ). Experiments on regulatory DNA design, protein inverse folding, QM9 molecular generation, and image generation report consistent gains over training-free baselines and competitive or better performance than fine-tuning methods such as DRAKES.

Significance. If the theoretical claims were established, this would be a substantial contribution: a training-free, plug-and-play guidance method for discrete diffusion with both differentiable and black-box rewards, backed by a large empirical study. The empirical design is a genuine strength: three-seed means and standard deviations, disjoint guidance/evaluation oracles, extensive ablations (Tabs. 7–10 and Figs. 5–7), and comparisons against strong baselines in three scientific domains. The paper also reports practical efficiency gains in the number of denoising-network and reward calls (Tab. 2). However, the central theoretical equivalence in Appendix B.2 is not proven; the method as currently justified is an SDS-style heuristic whose empirical utility is plausible but whose claimed connection to the reward-tilted optimal reverse process is unsupported. The paper should be revised to either supply a correct derivation or explicitly reframe the contribution as a heuristic and temper the corresponding claims in the abstract and introduction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3 and Appendix B.2] Eq. (14) decomposes ∇_{z_t} v(z_t) as the reward-to-logit gradient times the model Jacobian ∂η/∂z_t. Eq. (15) defines g_η as only the first factor. The Taylor expansion in Eq. (9), which is the starting point of Appendix B.2, requires ∇_{z_t} v(z_t), not the logit gradient. The proof substitutes g_η for ∇_{z_t} v without establishing that the two are equal or that the omitted Jacobian is an identity. Tabs. 7–8 show that omitting the Jacobian improves empirical results, but that supports a heuristic, not the claimed equality p^r = q(·|x^r_θ). This gap is load-bearing because the abstract and Section 1 present GILC as a principled method with a formal derivation.
  2. [Appendix B.2, mask-state normalization] The derivation in B.2 handles only non-mask tokens k≠m and normalizes over the K non-mask classes. The full posterior in Eq. (3) also assigns probability (1−α_s)/(1−α_t) to the mask state z_s = m. To equate the reward-tilted process with q(z_s|z_t, x^r_θ), the tilt at the mask state must satisfy an additional condition, e.g. exp(v(m)/β) = [Σ_j exp(η_j+g_j/β)]/[Σ_j exp(η_j)] in the notation of the appendix. This condition is not derived and is not generally true. Even if g_η were the correct value gradient, the claimed exact equivalence is therefore not established.
  3. [§5 (Limitations) and claims in Abstract/§1] The Limitations section acknowledges the mean-field assumption and Monte Carlo cost, but it does not acknowledge that the derivation in B.2 relies on an unproven Jacobian-free substitution and an omitted mask-state term. If the theoretical claim is to be kept, the proof must be repaired or stated as an approximation with a quantitative error bound; otherwise the paper should explicitly describe GILC as an empirically motivated heuristic and soften the 'exactly equivalent' and 'formal connection' statements. Without such a change, the manuscript's central theoretical claim is unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Algorithm 3 header] The algorithm caption says "CILC-PG", a typo for "GILC-PG".
  2. [Appendix A] In the paragraph on training-free guidance, "TFG-low" should be "TFG-Flow".
  3. [§4.4] The image-domain experiments are presented only qualitatively (Figs. 8–9). Reporting quantitative metrics, even simple ones such as FID or class-consistency accuracy, would strengthen the scalability claim.
  4. [§C.3] The ESMFold citation is missing in the self-consistency RMSD description; it appears as "( ?)".
  5. [Eq. (10)] The equivalence between minimizing D_KL(p_θ(x|z_t)‖p̃(x|z_t)) and minimizing −log p̃(x|z_t) holds only up to an additive constant independent of p̃; the text should state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Appendix B.2's equivalence proof is circular: it substitutes gη (the logit gradient that defines GILC) for the value-function gradient ∇_zt v required by Eq. 9, then concludes p^r = q(·|Softmax(η+gη/β)) — a restatement of the method's own definition; the mask token is silently omitted from the normalization.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.3 (Eq. 15) and Appendix B.2]
    "Sec. 3.3: 'we propose to bypass the model Jacobian altogether and define a stable guidance correction directly in the logit space: gη ≜ 1/n Σ ∂r(x̂(i))/∂x̂(i) ∂x̂(i)/∂η (15)' ... Appendix B.2: 'Using the Jacobian-free correction vector gη to represent the gradient direction ... exp(v(zs=ek)/β) ≈ exp(v(zt)+⟨gη, ek−zt⟩/β) ∝ exp(gη,k/β).'"

    Eq. 9 expands the value function using ∇_{z_t}v, the gradient w.r.t. the noisy state. Eq. 14 shows this gradient contains the model Jacobian term ∂η/∂z_t; Eq. 15 defines gη by deleting that term. B.2 then simply declares that gη 'represents the gradient direction' and substitutes it into the expansion. With that substitution, the tilted distribution collapses algebraically to Softmax(η+gη/β). But x^r_θ was defined in Sec. 3.3 as exactly Softmax(η+gη/β), and sampling is from q(zs|zt,x^r_θ). The claimed equality p^r=q(·|x^r_θ) is therefore a restatement of the algorithm's definition under an unproven identification, not a derivation from Eq. 6.

  2. other [Appendix B.2 (mask-state normalization)]
    "'For any non-mask token k≠m, the term matches the result in p^r_θ(zs=k|zt) exactly (under the transition kernel's normalization). Thus, the reward-tilted process is equivalent to a standard unmasking step using corrected clean prediction: p^r_θ(zs|zt)=q(zs|zt,x^r_θ).'"

    The equality is checked only for k≠m. The same appendix states the base transition mass on the mask is pθ(zs=m|zt)∝1−αs, while q puts (1−αs)/(1−αt) on the mask. With the mask included, exact equality would require (1−αt)Σ_j exp(η_j+g_j/β) = (1−αs)+(αs−αt)Σ_j exp(η_j+g_j/β), which is not generally true. The proof's final identity is obtained by omitting the mask state from the normalization—i.e., the equivalence is made to hold by dropping the term that would break it.

full rationale

GILC's update rule is fixed in Sec. 3.3 as η^r=η+gη/β with gη defined in Eq. 15. The only theoretical result claiming this is optimal is Appendix B.2's 'Proof of Equivalence'. That proof is circular in its key step: it substitutes gη (the logit-space reward gradient that defines the method) for the value gradient ∇_zt v required by the Taylor expansion, and then derives p^r=Softmax(η+gη/β), which is identical to the definition of x^r_θ. The proof additionally drops the mask token from the normalization, so the stated identity is not a valid consequence of Eq. 6. The empirical evaluation is independent: it uses held-out oracles, separate evaluation predictors, and ablations (Tabs. 1-4, 7-10), and the variational-proxy justification in Sec. 3.2 is non-circular because the training loss for xθ is the same NLL objective. No load-bearing self-citation was found. The circularity is therefore confined to the theoretical optimality claim, while the method may still work as an SDS-style heuristic; this is partial circularity, not complete equivalence of the paper's empirical contribution to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central method rests on four fitted/tuned quantities (β, n, τ, schedule) and four substantive assumptions. The Jacobian-free substitution is the most consequential: it is an unproven heuristic that the empirical ablations support but the formal claims do not. No new entities (forces, particles, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Guidance strength β = 10,000 (DNA), 1,000 (protein), 5,000 (molecules)
    Selected by grid search per task (Sec. C.1, Fig. 7); controls reward vs. KL trade-off and directly scales the logit correction η^r = η + g_η/β.
  • Monte Carlo sample size n = 5 (DNA, molecules), 20 (protein) for GILC-DB; 20 for GILC-PG
    Chosen per task as 'sufficient to achieve state-of-the-art performance' (Sec. C.1); the value estimator (Eq. 12) and gradient estimators (Eqs. 15, 17) depend on n.
  • Gumbel-Softmax temperature τ = 1.0
    Fixed at 1.0 (Sec. C.1); affects gradient bias-variance through the straight-through estimator in Eq. 13.
  • Reward-call scheduling = exponential decay (rate unspecified)
    Adopted as default after ablation (Tabs. 9–10); the schedule formula is not given, only a plot (Fig. 10), and it changes results materially (6.20→7.04 Pred-Activity).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Optimal constrained distribution has the form p_r(x) ∝ p_pre(x) exp(r(x)/β), and the optimal reverse process is p^r(z_s|z_t) ∝ p(z_s|z_t) exp(v(z_s)/β) (Eqs. 5–6).
    Taken from prior work (Uehara et al. 2024; Li et al. 2024); requires the KL-regularized objective and soft value definition (Eq. 7).
  • domain assumption Value function can be linearized by first-order Taylor expansion around z_t (Eq. 9).
    Valid only for smooth v and small β; used to make the optimal process factorizable and tractable.
  • domain assumption Mean-field variational proxy p̃(x|z_t) = ∏_ℓ Cat(x_ℓ; x_θ^ℓ(z_t,t)) is a good approximation of p_θ(x|z_t).
    Justified by the claim that the training loss equals the KL-minimization objective (Eq. 10–11 vs Eq. 4); authors acknowledge token-independence errors in Sec. 5. The two objectives differ in their expectations (forward-process data vs model posterior), so the equality is not exact.
  • ad hoc to paper The Jacobian-free substitution: the value gradient w.r.t. z_t may be replaced by the reward gradient w.r.t. the clean-prediction logits η (Eq. 14 → 15).
    Load-bearing premise of GILC; neither proven nor derived. Appendix B.2 merely inserts g_η into the Taylor expansion; the only evidence is empirical (Tabs. 7–8).
  • domain assumption REINFORCE/GRPO identity estimates ∇_η E_{pθ(x|z_t)}[r(x)] via samples from the proxy (Eqs. 16–17).
    Standard policy-gradient identity; however, the log-likelihood used is that of the proxy, not p_θ, so it estimates the proxy's gradient rather than the true value gradient.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plug-and-Play Guidance for Discrete Diffusion Models via Gradient-Informed Logit Correction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4C5W4B6K

@misc{pith2026260606303,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plug-and-Play Guidance for Discrete Diffusion Models via Gradient-Informed Logit Correction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4C5W4B6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.06303}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Controllable generation with discrete diffusion models is often hindered by high computational overhead or the need for retraining. In this paper, we present \underline{\textbf{G}}radient-\underline{\textbf{I}}nformed \underline{\textbf{L}}ogit \underline{\textbf{C}}orrection (\textbf{GILC}), a plug-and-play framework that efficiently estimates guidance signals by repurposing the pretrained denoising network as a variational proxy. To circumvent the gradient instability inherent in high-dimensional discrete spaces, we introduce a Jacobian-free mechanism that directly corrects the clean prediction logits, facilitating stable and effective guidance. Our method accommodates both differentiable and non-differentiable reward functions. Extensive experiments across DNA, protein sequence, and molecular generation tasks demonstrate that GILC achieves state-of-the-art performance without additional training, frequently outperforming fine-tuning approaches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06303 by Fengji Li, Hongjue Li, Hongkun Dou, Yue Deng, Zike Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the guided discrete diffusion process by GILC. The reverse sampling process (top) iteratively denoises a DNA sequence from the fully masked state (t = 1) to the clean data (t = 0). The core correction mechanism (bottom) operates at each step: the mask predictor outputs the clean prediction xθ, which are then modified by the reward gradient, r(·), yielding the guided prediction x r θ . The n… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Analysis of value estimation and guidance targets. (a) Convergence of the L1 error for the value function v(zt) across varying Monte Carlo (MC) sample sizes. Increasing the sample size (from 5 to 50) consistently minimizes estimation error, signifi￾cantly outperforming the Deterministic Estimation (DE) approach (Li et al., 2024). (b) Comparison of guidance targets during the denoising process. Guidance opt… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Numerical instability in the model Jacobian. (Top) Visualization of the Jacobian ∂η/∂zt, aggregated over categorical dimensions using the Frobenius norm, for a discrete DNA diffusion model. (Bottom) Corresponding singular value spectrum. The high condition number (K ≈ 104 –105 ) signifies severe ill-conditioning, which causes the gradient flow to become numerically unstable. model’s denoising network. This… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Demonstration of gradient calculation for GILC. (a) Differentiable rewards: The gradient gη is calculated via direct backpropagation, utilizing the Gumbel-Softmax trick and the Straight-Through estimator to enable differentiation through the discrete samples xˆ (i) . (b) Non-differentiable rewards: The gradient g ′ η is estimated via the policy gradient formulation, where the rewards r(x (i) ) are converte… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance comparison on DNA sequence design. The deterministic estimation (DE) baseline is compared with Monte Carlo (MC) estimation using varying sample sizes (n = 3 ∼ 10). Metrics include predicted activity, chromatin accessibility (ATAC-Acc), motif correlations (3-mer, JASPAR), and log-likelihood. Red stars (⋆) indicate the best performance for each metric. DE MC5 MC10 MC15 MC20 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 P r e … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance comparison on protein sequence design. The deterministic estimation (DE) baseline is compared with Monte Carlo (MC) estimation using varying sample sizes (n = 5 ∼ 20). Metrics evaluate stability (Pred-ddG, positive proportion) and structural self-consistency (scRMSD) and success rate. Red stars (⋆) indicate the best performance for each metric. D.1. Result of Molecular Generation In Tab. 4, the… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Ablation study on guidance strength β on GILC-DB. The impact of varying guidance strength is evaluated across three tasks. Red stars (⋆) indicate the optimal performance for each metric. size-related cues in the generated molecular structures. Finally, the Lower bound represents the MAE achieved by directly predicting target properties using the pretrained property predictor itself, serving as an approxima… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Class-conditional images generated by GILC-DB and GILC-PG on CIFAR-10. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Illustration of constant, linear, and exponential decay strategies normalized to a fixed budget (N ≈ 128 × 10). The exponential decay schedule prioritizes early-stage evaluations to counter high initial uncertainty. Allocation of Reward Function Calls. As shown in Fig. 2a, estimation errors of the value function are typically larger during the early stages of sampling. This suggests that, under a fixed bu… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

33 extracted references · 10 linked inside Pith

  1. [2]

    The deterministic estimation (DE) baseline is compared with Monte Carlo (MC) estimation using varying sample sizes (n= 5∼20 )

    ( ) 0.82 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.84 DE MC5 MC10 MC15 MC20 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9Success Rate ( ) 0.52 0.76 0.79 0.82 0.82 Figure 6.Performance comparison on protein sequence design. The deterministic estimation (DE) baseline is compared with Monte Carlo (MC) estimation using varying sample sizes (n= 5∼20 ). Metrics evaluate stability (Pred-ddG, positive proport...

    2000

  2. [3]

    9:end for 10:Output:Generated samplex←z 0 Algorithm 2Correction-DB(Direct Backpropagation Estimator) 1:Input:Logitsη, reward functionr(·), sample sizen 2:Sample soft samplesx (1) soft,· · ·,x(n) soft ∼Gumbel-Softmax(η); 3:Compute straight-through samples ˆx(i) ←onehot arg maxx (i) soft −sg x(i) soft +x (i) soft, i= 1, . . . , n; 4:Evaluate rewardsR i ←r( ...

    2025

  3. [6]

    and Salimans, T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [9]

    Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177,

    Liu, Y ., Zhang, K., Li, Y ., Yan, Z., Gao, C., Chen, R., Yuan, Z., Huang, Y ., Sun, H., Gao, J., et al. Sora: A review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17177,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [10]

    Large language diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09992,

    Nie, S., Zhu, F., You, Z., Zhang, X., Ou, J., Hu, J., Zhou, J., Lin, Y ., Wen, J.-R., and Li, C. Large language diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09992,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [11]

    Unlocking guidance for discrete state-space diffusion and flow models

    Nisonoff, H., Xiong, J., Allenspach, S., and Listgarten, J. Unlocking guidance for discrete state-space diffusion and flow models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pp. 36052–36106,

    2025

  7. [12]

    B., Kumar, A., Zhang, G., and Levine, S

    Peng, X. B., Kumar, A., Zhang, G., and Levine, S. Advantage-weighted regression: Simple and scalable off-policy reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.00177,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1910

  8. [13]

    Aligning text-to-image diffusion models with re- ward backpropagation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03739,

    Prabhudesai, M., Goyal, A., Pathak, D., and Fragkiadaki, K. Aligning text-to-image diffusion models with re- ward backpropagation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03739,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [15]

    Simple guidance mechanisms for discrete diffusion models

    Schiff, Y ., Sahoo, S., Phung, H., Wang, G., Boshar, S., Dalla-Torre, H., Almeida, B., Rush, A., Pierrot, T., and Kuleshov, V . Simple guidance mechanisms for discrete diffusion models. InInternational Conference on Learn- ing Representations, volume 2025, pp. 43776–43821,

    2025

  10. [16]

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

    Shao, Z., Wang, P., Zhu, Q., Xu, R., Song, J., Bi, X., Zhang, H., Zhang, M., Li, Y ., Wu, Y ., et al. Deepseekmath: Push- ing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [17]

    Un- derstanding reinforcement learning-based fine-tuning of diffusion models: A tutorial and review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13734,

    Uehara, M., Zhao, Y ., Biancalani, T., and Levine, S. Un- derstanding reinforcement learning-based fine-tuning of diffusion models: A tutorial and review.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13734,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [18]

    Fine-tuning discrete diffusion models via reward opti- mization with applications to dna and protein design

    Wang, C., Uehara, M., He, Y ., Wang, A., Lal, A., Jaakkola, T., Levine, S., Regev, A., Wang, H., and Biancalani, T. Fine-tuning discrete diffusion models via reward opti- mization with applications to dna and protein design. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pp. 47871–47899,

    2025

  13. [19]

    Aligning protein generative models with experimental fitness via direct preference optimization.bioRxiv, pp

    Widatalla, T., Rafailov, R., and Hie, B. Aligning protein generative models with experimental fitness via direct preference optimization.bioRxiv, pp. 2024–05,

    2024

  14. [20]

    Variational autoencoding discrete diffusion with enhanced dimensional correlations modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17384,

    Xie, T., Xue, S., Feng, Z., Hu, T., Sun, J., Li, Z., and Zhang, C. Variational autoencoding discrete diffusion with enhanced dimensional correlations modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.17384,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [21]

    13 Plug-and-Play Guidance for Discrete Diffusion Models via Gradient-Informed Logit Correction A. Related Works We review the landscape of diffusion models for constrained generation, focusing on the evolution from standard guidance to recent developments in diffusion with discrete state spaces. Classifier and Classifier-free Guidance.Classifier Guidance ...

    2021

  16. [22]

    have extended these paradigms to discrete diffusion and flow models. However, both face significant practical hurdles: CG necessitates training a dedicated noise-aware classifier, which precludes the use of pre-trained models optimized solely for clean data. Conversely, CFG requires paired datasets for joint training, a requirement that limits flexibility...

    2023

  17. [23]

    and SVDD (Li et al., 2024), rely on particle filtering or candidate selection. However, these methods are inherently limited to the explored candidate space; as the sequence length expands, the number of particles required grows rapidly, leading to prohibitive sampling times. Furthermore, while TFG-low (Lin et al.,

    2024

  18. [24]

    Recently, Ou et al

    show promise but are currently restricted to discrete diffusion with uniform transition matrices. Recently, Ou et al. (2026) suggests improving SMC by using reward gradient guidance as a better proposal distribution. In contrast, we directly derive our value function estimate from the variational objective and directly apply guidance to logits, which we f...

    2026

  19. [26]

    Unlike these approaches, our method adopts aplug-and-playfashion

    are still gaining traction. Unlike these approaches, our method adopts aplug-and-playfashion. By utilizing reward functions without parameter updates, we avoid the heavy computational overhead of fine-tuning and mitigate the common pitfall of reward hacking. Tab. 5 shows a comparison between our proposed GILC framework and representative methods. Table 5....

    2025

  20. [28]

    SMC is a general-purpose sampling framework that maintains a population of particles and applies filtering operations during generation to approximate the target distribution

    Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC)(Wu et al., 2023). SMC is a general-purpose sampling framework that maintains a population of particles and applies filtering operations during generation to approximate the target distribution. While SMC is theoretically exact in the limit of infinitely many particles, practical implementations necessarily operate with a finit...

    2023

  21. [29]

    SVDD is a derivative-free guidance method for diffusion models

    SVDD(Li et al., 2024). SVDD is a derivative-free guidance method for diffusion models. At each diffusion time step, it samples multiple candidate states from the transition kernel, estimates the future value of each candidate using a deterministic 17 Plug-and-Play Guidance for Discrete Diffusion Models via Gradient-Informed Logit Correction evaluator, and...

    2024

  22. [30]

    TFG-Flow was originally proposed as a training-free guided multimodal flow model that jointly generates continuous and discrete components

    TFG-Flow(Lin et al., 2025). TFG-Flow was originally proposed as a training-free guided multimodal flow model that jointly generates continuous and discrete components. When restricted to discrete guidance, it can also be applied as a discrete diffusion model. TFG-Flow requires estimating a guided rate matrix; in our experiments, this estimation is perform...

    2025

  23. [2000]

    Li, X., Zhao, Y ., Wang, C., Scalia, G., Eraslan, G., Nair, S., Biancalani, T., Ji, S., Regev, A., Levine, S., et al

    Morgan Kaufmann. Li, X., Zhao, Y ., Wang, C., Scalia, G., Eraslan, G., Nair, S., Biancalani, T., Ji, S., Regev, A., Levine, S., et al. Derivative-free guidance in continuous and discrete dif- fusion models with soft value-based decoding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08252,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [2013]

    Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning

    Black, K., Janner, M., Du, Y ., Kostrikov, I., and Levine, S. Training diffusion models with reinforcement learning. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 4965–4987,

    2024

  25. [2014]

    Steering masked discrete diffusion models via discrete denoising posterior prediction

    Rector-Brooks, J., Hasan, M., Peng, Z., Liu, C., Mittal, S., Dziri, N., Bronstein, M., Chatterjee, P., Tong, A., and Bose, J. Steering masked discrete diffusion models via discrete denoising posterior prediction. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pp. 25383–25414,

    2025

  26. [2015]

    As reported in Tab

    is utilized to measure structural similarity against target molecules. As reported in Tab. 6, GILC-PG significantly outperforms all baselines, achieving the highest similarity score. Overall, these findings highlight the effectiveness and generality of the GILC framework in guiding discrete and multimodal flows toward both differentiable and non-different...

    2025

  27. [2017]

    Crafting papers on machine learning

    Langley, P. Crafting papers on machine learning. In Langley, P. (ed.),Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000), pp. 1207–1216, Stan- ford, CA,

    2000

  28. [2021]

    Manifold preserving guided diffusion

    He, Y ., Murata, N., Lai, C.-H., Takida, Y ., Uesaka, T., Kim, D., Liao, W., Mitsufuji, Y ., Kolter, Z., Salakhutdinov, R., et al. Manifold preserving guided diffusion. InInterna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 44819–44850,

    2024

  29. [2022]

    and high-resolution text-to-image synthesis via Meissonic (Bai et al., 2024). D.3. Ablation Study We first perform a series of ablation studies to rigorously validate the effectiveness of our framework’s core components. Subsequently, we investigate the sensitivity of GILC-DB and GILC-PG to various hyperparameter configurations. Value Function Estimation....

    2024

  30. [2023]

    Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards

    Clark, K., Vicol, P., Swersky, K., and Fleet, D. Directly fine-tuning diffusion models on differentiable rewards. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pp. 4793–4822,

    2024

  31. [2024]

    have been used to fine-tune continuous models, extensions to discrete states (Venkatraman et al., 2024; Rector-Brooks et al., 2025; Zekri & Boull´e, 2026; Wang et al.,

    2024

  32. [2025]

    Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for con- ditional computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432,

    Bengio, Y ., L´eonard, N., and Courville, A. Estimating or propagating gradients through stochastic neurons for con- ditional computation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.3432,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [2026]

    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. In11th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023,

    2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.