Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Single Trajectory Distillation for Accelerating Image and Video Style Transfer

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that few-step style transfer is made accurate by distilling a single fixed denoising trajectory rather than aligning many forward trajectories at their starts.

desk verdict A sensible distillation recipe for stylization, but the 'surpasses baselines' claim rests on a CFG protocol that the authors' own supplement admits favors them. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18945 v1 pith:WRIYTNNW submitted 2024-12-25 cs.CV

Sijie Xu , Runqi Wang , Wei Zhu , Dejia Song , Nemo Chen , Xu Tang , Yao Hu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords singletrajectorydistillationconsistencymodelstyletransferdiffusionaccelerationbankadversariallossvideostylizationpartialnoiseediting
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

Image and video stylization usually adds a fixed amount of noise to the input and then denoises, which is slow. Prior consistency-model accelerators align only the first step of the student with an imperfect teacher, so errors propagate along the whole trajectory. The paper proposes single-trajectory distillation (STD): fix the noise strength used at inference and make the student self-consistent along the teacher's entire denoising trajectory from that exact point. A trajectory bank stores intermediate states to avoid repeated ODE solves during training, and an asymmetric adversarial loss reduces speckle while boosting saturation. On SDXL-based image and video stylization, STD reports higher style-similarity and aesthetic scores than LCM, TCD, PCM, TDD, Hyper-SD, SDXL-Lightning, and MCM at four to eight function evaluations.

What carries the argument

Single-trajectory distillation (STD) is a consistency-distillation objective defined on the one denoising trajectory that starts from the fixed partial-noise state $x_{\tau_\eta}=\alpha_{\tau_\eta}x_0+\sigma_{\tau_\eta}\epsilon$, instead of on the bundle of forward-diffusion trajectories used by prior consistency models. The loss is $L_{\text{STD}}=\|f_\theta(\hat{x}^{\phi,\eta}_{t_{n+1}},t_{n+1},s)-f_{\theta^-}(\hat{x}^{\phi,\eta}_{t_n},t_n,s)\|_2^2$, with $\hat{x}^{\phi,\eta}_{t}$ obtained from the teacher's ODE solver applied to $x_{\tau_\eta}$. Two supporting mechanisms carry it: a trajectory bank that stores intermediate states of that single trajectory so training never re-computes them from scratch, and an asymmetric adversarial loss that compares the student's prediction at timestep $s$ to real images noised to $r<s$ via DINO-v2 features.

What would settle it

Measure the student's predicted trajectory against the teacher's at intermediate timesteps for a fixed $\eta=0.75$: if STD's whole-trajectory error is not measurably smaller than LCM's or TCD's at the same number of steps, the central claim fails. Alternatively, evaluate a model trained at $\eta=0.75$ at $\eta=0.8$ without retraining: a sharp drop in style-similarity or aesthetic scores would confirm the single-trajectory specialization and expose the fixed-strength assumption.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in an imperfect denoising model, the PF-ODE trajectories starting from different points on the forward diffusion path are inconsistent, so consistency distillation that starts from forward-diffusion samples fits the teacher badly everywhere except the first step. Since stylization inference always starts from one specific noise level $\eta$, the paper defines a single trajectory $x_{\tau_\eta} \to \hat{x}^\phi_0$ and distills self-consistency along it: the student learns $f_\theta(x_t,t,s)=f_{\theta^-}(\hat{x}^\phi_t,t,s)$ for $t\in[0,\tau_\eta]$, where $\hat{x}^\phi_t$ is produced by denoising $x_{\tau_\eta}$ with the teacher, not by re-adding noise to $x_0$. A theorem gives the bound $\|x_s-\hat{x}^\phi_s\|<C_{t,s}\cdot\delta_\phi$ for a DDIM solver, showing why initial-step alignment fails as $t$ and $s$ separate. With the trajectory bank and the asymmetric adversarial loss, STD achieves the reported gains at 4–8 steps.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that every application will start denoising from exactly the same fixed noise strength the model was trained on, and it trains a separate model for each strength.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At NFE 4–8, stylized images and videos from an SDXL-class model reach higher style-similarity and aesthetic scores than the listed acceleration baselines, lowering the computational barrier for practical stylization.
  • Because the trajectory bank makes single-trajectory training cheap, the method scales to video stylization, where multi-step ODE solves during training would be prohibitively expensive.
  • The asymmetric adversarial loss, which constrains predictions at timestep $s$ against real images at $r<s$, is matched to the teacher-trajectory learning target; aligning at timestep 0 instead degrades style and aesthetics, as shown in the paper's ablation table.
  • The theorem implies that any partial-noise editing task with a fixed noise strength, not just stylization, can use the same single-trajectory approach; the paper names image inpainting as future work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether a single model conditioned on $\eta$ (for example, through a small embedding) regains the per-strength gains without training four separate checkpoints; the paper's bound suggests nearby $\eta$ trajectories are close, so interpolation may succeed.
  • The trajectory bank acts as a replay buffer with non-stationary states; systematically varying its size, update rate, and sampling probability $\rho$ could reveal trade-offs and might explain residual speckle artifacts.
  • The bound $C_{t,s}\delta_\phi$ quantifies how trajectory error grows with the spread of starting timesteps, implying that the advantage of STD over initial-step methods should increase as the teacher model becomes less accurate—a prediction that could be tested with deliberately weak teachers.
  • Inference in the paper uses a TCD scheduler while training uses a DDIM solver; training with the exact sampling-time solver could close the remaining distribution gap and is a direct, testable variant.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes single-trajectory distillation (STD) for accelerating diffusion-based image and video style transfer. The method starts from a fixed partial-noise strength eta, distills the teacher's reverse-time trajectory for that eta using a consistency-style loss, and introduces a trajectory bank to reuse teacher states during training. An asymmetric adversarial loss based on DINO-v2 features is added to improve saturation and reduce speckle noise. The authors report improved CSD and aesthetic scores over LCM, TCD, PCM, TDD, Hyper-SD, SDXL-Lightning, and MCM at NFE 4-8, and support the method with ablations and a theoretical motivation.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated, the contribution is practically useful: it targets the common partial-noise editing setting rather than full text-to-image generation, and the trajectory bank is a sensible way to reduce the training cost of multi-step distillation. The idea of matching the student to the teacher's single trajectory for a fixed eta is simple and worth exploring. However, the current evaluation protocol and the theoretical justification have load-bearing weaknesses that prevent accepting the central 'surpasses all baselines' claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 / Table 1 / Supplementary 9.1] The headline comparison fixes CFG=6 for all methods, while Supplementary 9.1 states that the recommended CFGs are 1.0 for LCM/TCD/SDXL-Lightning/MCM, 1.6 for PCM, and 2.0 for TDD, and explicitly explains that the baselines 'often appear less stylized' because of the low recommended CFG. This means the reported margins (e.g., CSD 0.554 vs 0.522 for Hyper-SD at NFE=8) may be artifacts of the CFG protocol rather than evidence that STD is superior. Please report results at each method's recommended CFG and at each method's best CFG, and provide per-method tuning details. Figure 5, which is offered as a CFG sweep, is a line chart without numeric values, per-method optima, or error bars, so it does not resolve this concern.
  2. [Section 4.1 / Eq. (9)-(10) / Supplementary 7] The theorem claims that PF-ODE trajectories from any two forward points are inconsistent for an imperfect teacher, but the proof only bounds the distance between x_s and the one-step DDIM denoised sample by C_{t,s} * delta_phi. An upper bound of this form does not establish that the trajectories are necessarily non-equivalent; the actual error could be zero even when delta_phi > 0. In addition, C_{t,s} as defined can be negative for some (t,s), and the proof treats vector differences as scalars. Please either replace the theorem with a rigorous lower-bound or non-equivalence argument, or explicitly present it as a heuristic motivation rather than a formal theorem.
  3. [Section 5.2 / Table 1 / Figure 5] The central empirical claim is not supported with appropriate statistics. Table 1 reports single-run metric values without variance, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and Figure 5 is a line chart with no numeric values or error bars. Given the small differences between STD and the best baselines (e.g., CSD 0.554 vs 0.522; aesthetic 5.190 vs 5.163 at NFE=8), repeated-run statistics are needed to substantiate the word 'surpasses'. Furthermore, the asymmetric adversarial loss is explicitly designed to increase saturation and contrast (Section 5.3), and the aesthetic predictor may reward exactly those low-level properties, so the aesthetic and CSD metrics are not independent controls. A human evaluation or an alternative aesthetic metric would help.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.1] There is a duplicated sentence: 'Distillation can be specifically tailored to the complete trajectory for a particular eta, called single-trajectory distillation. This approach reduces error and improves alignment...' appears twice in consecutive paragraphs.
  2. [Section 6] In the conclusion, 'trajetories' should be 'trajectories'.
  3. [Supplementary 7, Eq. (20)] Equation (20) defines epsilon ~ N(0, sigma^2 I), but the DDIM derivation that follows sets sigma_t = 0. Please clarify the notation and the role of sigma in the forward process.
  4. [Algorithm 1] Line 5 samples (x0, xt_{n+1}, c, t_{n+1}) from the trajectory bank, but earlier text defines bank entries as (x0, x_hat_t, c, t). The notation should be made consistent.
  5. [Section 5.2] The text says 'We evaluated each method with CFG values of 2, 4, 6, and 8' and refers to Figure 5, but the figure does not report the numeric scores. Please provide the underlying numbers in a table or as a supplementary table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the central claim is an empirical comparison, with only a minor self-citation in the evaluation protocol.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The motivating theorem (Section 4.1 and Supplementary 7) starts from the explicit assumption that the teacher model has bounded noise-prediction error, |epsilon - epsilon_phi| < delta_phi, and derives via the DDIM update the bound |hat_x_s^phi - x_s| < C_{t,s} * delta_phi. The conclusion that PF-ODE trajectories from different noise strengths do not coincide is a consequence of that inequality, not an input to it. The STD objective in Eq. 11-15 is a consistency loss against teacher states generated from a fixed eta, and the trajectory bank is an implementation device to avoid repeated sampling; no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The headline superiority claim is an empirical comparison at CFG=6 (Table 1, Figure 4), not a quantity forced by construction. The only self-referential element is the use of the authors' own TDD paper [31] to set 'recommended' CFG values for baselines in Supplementary 9.1, which is a protocol-transparency concern rather than a circular step. The main comparison is not reduced to that self-citation, and the central result retains independent empirical content, so the score is 2 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are postulated. The trajectory bank is a data structure, not an invented entity. The free parameters are the usual hyperparameters of distillation and adversarial training, but several are load-bearing because the method is defined around a fixed eta and a replay schedule.

free parameters (6)
  • eta (noise strength) = 0.75
    Chosen for the main model; Supplementary 9.2 trains separate models for 0.65, 0.75, 0.85, 0.95, so the method is not strength-invariant.
  • gamma (target timestep range rate) = recommended 0.7 or 0.9 in Supp 9.2
    Controls the sampling interval for the student target timestep s; selected by ablation.
  • rho (trajectory bank sampling probability) = no explicit default; ablated at 0.2 and 0.8 in Figure 6
    Probability of drawing from the trajectory bank versus a fresh forward sample; affects training dynamics.
  • lambda_adv (adversarial loss weight) = no explicit default; ablated at 0.1, 0.5, 0.9 in Figure 6
    Weight of the asymmetric adversarial loss; tuned by ablation.
  • trajectory bank size M = 4
    Set in Section 5.1; unusually small relative to batch size 128, and the update mechanism is only sketched.
  • CFG at inference = 6 for all methods in the main comparison
    Chosen for the main tables and Figure 5, while the supplementary notes most baselines recommend lower CFG values; this can favor STD in style metrics.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The probability flow ODE exists and can be simulated by a DDIM solver with the teacher model.
    Invoked in Section 2.1 and in the proof of Supplementary 7; this is standard diffusion-model theory from Song et al. [29].
  • domain assumption Stylization inference uses a fixed noise strength eta, so training on a single trajectory for that eta is sufficient.
    Central to the method; Section 5.1 fixes eta=0.75 and Supplementary 9.2 acknowledges that each eta requires a separate model.
  • domain assumption DINO-v2 features provide a suitable semantic space for adversarial style and quality constraints.
    Stated in Section 4.3 as the reason for adopting a DINO-v2 discriminator; no evidence is given that this choice does not bias the obtained metrics.
  • ad hoc to paper The teacher's noise prediction error is bounded by delta_phi, and the discrepancy bound in Eq. 9-10 is representative of whole-trajectory inconsistency.
    The theorem in Section 4.1 and Supplementary 7 proves only a one-step DDIM discrepancy; the jump to full trajectory inconsistency is an unproved assertion.
  • ad hoc to paper Sampling from the trajectory bank with probability rho and size 4 does not bias the distillation objective.
    Algorithm 1 alternates between fresh forward samples and bank samples; the paper does not analyze whether this mixing changes the effective training distribution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single Trajectory Distillation for Accelerating Image and Video Style Transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WRIYTNNW

@misc{pith2026241218945,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single Trajectory Distillation for Accelerating Image and Video Style Transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WRIYTNNW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18945}
}
read the original abstract

Diffusion-based stylization methods typically denoise from a specific partial noise state for image-to-image and video-to-video tasks. This multi-step diffusion process is computationally expensive and hinders real-world application. A promising solution to speed up the process is to obtain few-step consistency models through trajectory distillation. However, current consistency models only force the initial-step alignment between the probability flow ODE (PF-ODE) trajectories of the student and the imperfect teacher models. This training strategy can not ensure the consistency of whole trajectories. To address this issue, we propose single trajectory distillation (STD) starting from a specific partial noise state. We introduce a trajectory bank to store the teacher model's trajectory states, mitigating the time cost during training. Besides, we use an asymmetric adversarial loss to enhance the style and quality of the generated images. Extensive experiments on image and video stylization demonstrate that our method surpasses existing acceleration models in terms of style similarity and aesthetic evaluations. Our code and results will be available on the project page: https://single-trajectory-distillation.github.io.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18945 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of Results. Stylization examples of our method at the number of function evaluations (NFEs) 8 and 4. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison with other distillation schemes. (a) repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The diagram illustrates the single-trajectory distillation algorithm based on stable diffusion. On the left side is the trajectory bank, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of Experimental Results. The figure shows some comparison examples among our method, STD, and other accel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Line chart comparing methods under different CFG [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study on the strength of single-trajectory distil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Examples of different strength η result with 0.65, 0.75, 0.85 and 0.95. 8. Metrics and Implementation Details Metrics In our experiments, we employ the CSD Score to evaluate the style similarity between the generated im￾age and the reference style image, the Aesthetic …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: All style images and corresponding prompts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Examples of different γ for random target timestep s. The adversarial inputs include the model’s predictions and the real images. For example, we denote these as xs, xr, where xs represents the prediction at timestep s, and xr refers to the real images with noise adde…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of different adversarial settings. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: More comparison results in different NFEs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Video style transfer results in NFEs=8 and CFG=8. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions

    Tim Brooks, Aleksander Holynski, and Alexei A Efros. In- structpix2pix: Learning to follow image editing instructions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18392–18402, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Laion: Image data, ai, and disposses- sion

    Laura Jannes Burger. Laion: Image data, ai, and disposses- sion. Master’s thesis, 2023. 6

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Ar- tadapter: Text-to-image style transfer using multi-level style encoder and explicit adaptation

    Dar-Yen Chen, Hamish Tennent, and Ching-Wen Hsu. Ar- tadapter: Text-to-image style transfer using multi-level style encoder and explicit adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8619–8628, 2024. 6

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers

    Tsai-Shien Chen, Aliaksandr Siarohin, Willi Menapace, Ekaterina Deyneka, Hsiang-wei Chao, Byung Eun Jeon, Yuwei Fang, Hsin-Ying Lee, Jian Ren, Ming-Hsuan Yang, and Sergey Tulyakov. Panda-70m: Captioning 70m videos with multiple cross-modality teachers. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024. 6

    2024

  5. [5]

    Diffutoon: High-resolution ed- itable toon shading via diffusion models

    Zhongjie Duan, Chengyu Wang, Cen Chen, Weining Qian, and Jun Huang. Diffutoon: High-resolution ed- itable toon shading via diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16224, 2024. 3, 6

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion

    Rinon Gal, Yuval Alaluf, Yuval Atzmon, Or Patash- nik, Amit H Bermano, Gal Chechik, and Daniel Cohen- Or. An image is worth one word: Personalizing text-to- image generation using textual inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.01618, 2022. 4

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Animatediff: Animate your personalized text- to-image diffusion models without specific tuning

    Yuwei Guo, Ceyuan Yang, Anyi Rao, Zhengyang Liang, Yaohui Wang, Yu Qiao, Maneesh Agrawala, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Animatediff: Animate your personalized text- to-image diffusion models without specific tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.04725, 2023. 7

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising dif- fusion probabilistic models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020. 2

    2020

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. 4

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Consistency trajectory mod- els: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion

    Dongjun Kim, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Naoki Mu- rata, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Uesaka, Yutong He, Yuki Mitsufuji, and Stefano Ermon. Consistency trajectory mod- els: Learning probability flow ode trajectory of diffusion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02279, 2023. 1, 3, 4

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Imagine flash: Accelerating emu diffusion models with backward distillation

    Jonas Kohler, Albert Pumarola, Edgar Sch ¨onfeld, Artsiom Sanakoyeu, Roshan Sumbaly, Peter Vajda, and Ali Tha- bet. Imagine flash: Accelerating emu diffusion models with backward distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05224 ,

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Anyv2v: A tuning-free framework for any video-to- video editing tasks

    Max Ku, Cong Wei, Weiming Ren, Harry Yang, and Wenhu Chen. Anyv2v: A tuning-free framework for any video-to- video editing tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14468, 2024. 6, 2

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Blind video temporal consistency via deep video prior

    Chenyang Lei, Yazhou Xing, and Qifeng Chen. Blind video temporal consistency via deep video prior. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. 6

    2020

  6. [14]

    Deep video prior for video consistency and propagation

    Chenyang Lei, Yazhou Xing, Hao Ouyang, and Qifeng Chen. Deep video prior for video consistency and propagation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intel- ligence, 45(1):356–371, 2022. 6

    2022

  7. [15]

    Style- tokenizer: Defining image style by a single instance for con- trolling diffusion models

    Wen Li, Muyuan Fang, Cheng Zou, Biao Gong, Ruobing Zheng, Meng Wang, Jingdong Chen, and Ming Yang. Style- tokenizer: Defining image style by a single instance for con- trolling diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02543,

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Sdxl- lightning: Progressive adversarial diffusion distillation

    Shanchuan Lin, Anran Wang, and Xiao Yang. Sdxl- lightning: Progressive adversarial diffusion distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13929, 2024. 4, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongxuan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver: A fast ode solver for diffusion probabilistic model sampling in around 10 steps. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35:5775–5787,

  10. [18]

    Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models

    Cheng Lu, Yuhao Zhou, Fan Bao, Jianfei Chen, Chongx- uan Li, and Jun Zhu. Dpm-solver++: Fast solver for guided sampling of diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.01095, 2022. 2

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Latent consistency models: Synthesizing high- resolution images with few-step inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04378, 2023. 1, 7, 8

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Lcm-lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module

    Simian Luo, Yiqin Tan, Suraj Patil, Daniel Gu, Patrick von Platen, Apolin´ario Passos, Longbo Huang, Jian Li, and Hang Zhao. Lcm-lora: A universal stable-diffusion acceleration module. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05556, 2023. 7

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01073, 2021. 1, 3, 4

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hotshot-XL, 2023

    John Mullan, Duncan Crawbuck, and Aakash Sastry. Hotshot-XL, 2023. 7

    2023

  15. [23]

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision

    Maxime Oquab, Timoth ´ee Darcet, Th ´eo Moutakanni, Huy V o, Marc Szafraniec, Vasil Khalidov, Pierre Fernandez, Daniel Haziza, Francisco Massa, Alaaeldin El-Nouby, et al. Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. 5

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis

    Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas M ¨uller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion mod- els for high-resolution image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01952, 2023. 1, 6

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hyper-sd: Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis

    Yuxi Ren, Xin Xia, Yanzuo Lu, Jiacheng Zhang, Jie Wu, Pan Xie, Xing Wang, and Xuefeng Xiao. Hyper-sd: Trajectory segmented consistency model for efficient image synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13686, 2024. 1, 4, 7, 8 9

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Adversarial diffusion distillation

    Axel Sauer, Dominik Lorenz, Andreas Blattmann, and Robin Rombach. Adversarial diffusion distillation. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 87–103. Springer,

  19. [27]

    Measuring style similarity in diffusion models

    Gowthami Somepalli, Anubhav Gupta, Kamal Gupta, Shra- may Palta, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, Abhinav Shri- vastava, and Tom Goldstein. Measuring style similarity in diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01292, 2024. 6

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Denoising diffusion implicit models

    Jiaming Song, Chenlin Meng, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion implicit models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.02502, 2020. 2, 7

    2010 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Ab- hishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equa- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020. 2, 3

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01469, 2023. 1, 3, 4

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Target-driven distilla- tion: Consistency distillation with target timestep selection and decoupled guidance

    Cunzheng Wang, Ziyuan Guo, Yuxuan Duan, Huaxia Li, Nemo Chen, Xu Tang, and Yao Hu. Target-driven distilla- tion: Consistency distillation with target timestep selection and decoupled guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.01347,

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Phased consistency model

    Fu-Yun Wang, Zhaoyang Huang, Alexander William Bergman, Dazhong Shen, Peng Gao, Michael Lingel- bach, Keqiang Sun, Weikang Bian, Guanglu Song, Yu Liu, et al. Phased consistency model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18407, 2024. 4, 5, 7, 8

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Animatelcm: Accelerating the animation of personalized diffusion mod- els and adapters with decoupled consistency learning

    Fu-Yun Wang, Zhaoyang Huang, Xiaoyu Shi, Weikang Bian, Guanglu Song, Yu Liu, and Hongsheng Li. Animatelcm: Accelerating the animation of personalized diffusion mod- els and adapters with decoupled consistency learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00769, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style- preserving in text-to-image generation

    Haofan Wang, Qixun Wang, Xu Bai, Zekui Qin, and Anthony Chen. Instantstyle: Free lunch towards style- preserving in text-to-image generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02733, 2024. 7

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Stylediffusion: Controllable disentangled style transfer via diffusion models

    Zhizhong Wang, Lei Zhao, and Wei Xing. Stylediffusion: Controllable disentangled style transfer via diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 7677–7689, 2023. 4, 6

    2023

  28. [36]

    Csgo: Content-style composition in text-to-image genera- tion

    Peng Xing, Haofan Wang, Yanpeng Sun, Qixun Wang, Xu Bai, Hao Ai, Renyuan Huang, and Zechao Li. Csgo: Content-style composition in text-to-image genera- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16766, 2024. 4, 6

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models

    Hu Ye, Jun Zhang, Sibo Liu, Xiao Han, and Wei Yang. Ip- adapter: Text compatible image prompt adapter for text-to- image diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.06721,

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis

    Tianwei Yin, Micha ¨el Gharbi, Taesung Park, Richard Zhang, Eli Shechtman, Fredo Durand, and William T Freeman. Im- proved distribution matching distillation for fast image syn- thesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14867, 2024. 4

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Motion consistency model: Accel- erating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation

    Yuanhao Zhai, Kevin Lin, Zhengyuan Yang, Linjie Li, Jian- feng Wang, Chung-Ching Lin, David Doermann, Junsong Yuan, and Lijuan Wang. Motion consistency model: Accel- erating video diffusion with disentangled motion-appearance distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.06890, 2024...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Trajectory consistency distillation

    Jianbin Zheng, Minghui Hu, Zhongyi Fan, Chaoyue Wang, Changxing Ding, Dacheng Tao, and Tat-Jen Cham. Trajectory consistency distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.19159, 2024. 3, 4, 7, 8, 2 10 Single Trajectory Distillation for Accelerating Image and Video Style Transfer Supp...

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    This means that for any values η, η′ ∈ [0, 1], the trajectories xτη → xη 0 and xτη′ → xη′ 0 are not equivalent

    Theoretical Proof Theorem: In an imperfect denoising model, the PF-ODE trajectories originating from any two points on the for- ward diffusion path are inconsistent. This means that for any values η, η′ ∈ [0, 1], the trajectories xτη → xη 0 and xτη′ → xη′ 0 are not equivalent....

  34. [42]

    The contrastive style descriptors (CSD), denoted as li = fV iT(xi) ∈ Rd , are utilized to compute similarity scores defined by si,j = lT i · lj

    Metrics and Implementation Details Metrics In our experiments, we employ the CSD Score to evaluate the style similarity between the generated im- age and the reference style image, the Aesthetic Score to assess the overall image quality, and the Warping Error to quantify the t...

  35. [43]

    Image and Video Comparison Results We show more image and video style transfer results in Fig- ure 11 and Figure 12

    Additional Generated Samples 9.1. Image and Video Comparison Results We show more image and video style transfer results in Fig- ure 11 and Figure 12. In Figure 11, we present additional examples where the NFEs are set to 8 and 4 with a CFG of

  36. [44]

    co / 2vXpSwA7 / iroiro - lora / tree/main/test_controlnet2 4https://huggingface.co/hotshotco/Hotshot-XL 2 the recommended CFG settings for different methods

    Furthermore, we include comparative cases that utilize 3https : / / huggingface . co / 2vXpSwA7 / iroiro - lora / tree/main/test_controlnet2 4https://huggingface.co/hotshotco/Hotshot-XL 2 the recommended CFG settings for different methods. We choose the recommended CFGs accord...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.