Generative Lines Matching Models
Generative Flow;Denoising Score Matching;Denoising Diffusion Probability Models
Yes
No ethics review needed.
See weaknesses.
- The pairs produced by diffusion ODE provide clearer signals than the diffusion model prediction, and the perceptual loss/adversarial loss are common techniques targeting the enhancement of FID. It is no surprise that they can bring improvements
- The 1-step and 2-step results on standard image datasets are better than previous works.
The paper proposes generative line matching models for few-step image generation. The model is trained on straight lines that connect noise-data pairs produced by ODE sampler, combined with tricks including domain-specific loss, adversarial loss and sample-optimized training. Experiments on CIFAR-10, ImageNet 64×64 and AFHQ 64×64 achieve better 1-step and 2-step FID than previous works.
- A large portion of the writing is to explain the flaw of diffusion models in few-step generation and the advantage of straightness. However, these ideas are largely from previous works like Flow Matching, Stochastic Interpolants, Rectified Flow, Consistency Models, and are well-known to the audience who are familiar with diffusion models. The authors should simplify this part and focus on the difference with prior work.
- The authors make claims which seem to convince the readers that diffusion models are incorrect (using words like "singularity" "collapse" and "underestimate"). However, the optimal denoiser is exactly the posterior mean. Diffusion models themselves are well-defined in theory, and it can only be said that "they are not originally designed for few-step generation". The idea of distilling the ODE trajectory is already proposed in consistency models.
- The authors stress the importance of straightness throughout the whole paper, which constitutes the core motivation and idea of the methods proposed. However, this is neither sound nor supported by experiments:
  - Straight path is only a special noise schedule in diffusion models. Different noise schedules are actually equivalent by some transformation [1], and straightness is also not necessary in diffusion distillation, as pointed out by [2].
  - The main improvement of FID stems from perceptual/adversarial loss, while these tricks have nothing to do with the trajectory straightness. In particular, perceptual loss is not preferred as improvements in FIDs can come from accidental leakage of ImageNet features from LPIPS, causing inflated FID scores [3]. Besides, the adversarial loss can perturb the fidelity to the ODE solution.
  - The sample-optimized training restricts the training to only the timesteps at sampling. In 1-step sampling, the intermediate timesteps are never used, so it does not matter whether the constructed path is straight or not. Given the notable improvement in 1-step FID, it can be concluded that it comes from other tricks instead of straightness, the main claim of the paper.

[1] Variational diffusion models
[2] Rectified Diffusion: Straightness Is Not Your Need in Rectified Flow
[3] IMPROVED TECHNIQUES FOR TRAINING CONSISTENCY MODELS
Yes
No ethics review needed.
Please refer to the weakness section.
The presentation is clear and easy to follow. The comparisons of baseline approaches illustrated in Table 1 are both informative and interesting.

I appreciate the analysis in Appendix A.2. Wrapping it up as a theorem would be even clearer to understand the result and claim.
This work proposes a diffusion distillation method that aims to establish pairings between samples from the prior and clean data by leveraging ODE solving with a pre-trained model to obtain the clean data. Combined with adversarial training.
1. Please be mindful of repeated notations. For instance, $N$ is used both as the maximum timestep and to denote the neural network while ignoring inputs.

2. The proposed method advocates for directly matching the network $ N_{\theta}(\cdot, \sigma)$ prediction with the generated sample from the teacher model $N^*_{\text{sampler}}$ in Eq. (3). However, creating the pairs $ (x_0, N^*_{\text{sampler}}(x_0)) $ may be expensive (offline and online), as it involves solving ODEs. Please also compare the estimated training time. 


3. The novelty of the proposed method appears to be limited. Please clarify the fundamental differences between the proposal and [1] as well as CTM. Notably, [1] also suggests matching the network prediction with the sample by solving ODEs until reaching the clean space. Furthermore, the proposal can be viewed as a specific instance of CTM's *soft matching*, where it aligns with what they refer to as *global matching*.

4. [2] also proposed preparing paired data, specifically data-to-noise pairs $(\text{DDIM}^{0\rightarrow T}(x_1), x_1)$ with $ x_1 \sim p_{\text{data}} $, for distillation alongside adversarial training. In this context, what is the fundamental difference between the proposed method and [2]? Additionally, they demonstrated in Fig. 5 that using an imperfect teacher model for noise-to-data collection, combined with adversarial training, results in suboptimal performance. How can we ensure that the proposed method (along with adversarial training) effectively learns the true data distribution?


5. What if the teacher model $N^*_{\text{sampler}}$is not perfect? Including an ablation study based on an imperfect teacher would be beneficial.

6. Given that the training relies on GAN, how can we stabilize its training? Additionally, is the adversarial loss applied from the very beginning of the LMM training? How can we ensure that the model does not suffer from low diversity when using GAN?

7. The discriminator structure of StyleGAN-XL [3] incorporates ImageNet pre-trained feature extractors, which can significantly bias the FID measurements. I recommend comparing all generation quality using EDM-2's proposed Fréchet distances with DINOv2 or training the discriminator for GAN loss from scratch.

Minor comment: The figure in Table 3 appears to be compressed, which may affect the evaluation of the ablation study.


[1] Eric Luhman and Troy Luhman. Knowledge distillation in iterative generative models for improved sampling speed.  2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02388.

[2] Kim, D., Lai, C. H., Liao, W. H., Takida, Y., Murata, N., Uesaka, T., ... & Ermon, S. (2024). PaGoDA: Progressive Growing of a One-Step Generator from a Low-Resolution Diffusion Teacher. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14822.

[3] Sauer, A., Schwarz, K., & Geiger, A. (2022, July). Stylegan-xl: Scaling stylegan to large diverse datasets. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2022 conference proceedings (pp. 1-10).
Yes
No ethics review needed.
-
The paper provides a new perspective on straight trajectory.
This paper proposes a new distillation model that support strong small-step generation quality using the DDIM-based coupling.
- Let's focus on the setting that $p_0(x_0)$ is the prior distribution. Then, the author's claim is that, with the coupling of $(x_0,x_1)$, where $x_1$ is the solution of PF-ODE, works better than previous algorithms. What does the neural network learns? Does it learn some trajectory? Which trajectory does it learn? How to sample with multi-steps? If it sample like multistep CM, then what's the whole point of having straighter trajectories?

- I personally am not fully convinced of the whole story about the straight flow concept. Basically, what straighter flow promises is that they perform better with small-step samples, but for me, diffusion+distillation seems enough. Given diffusion+distillation, why do we need this straighter flow?
Yes
No ethics concern
No ethics review needed.
Please check the weakness.
The paper is well written. The motivation is clear and proposed technique is reasonable.
This paper proposes the Line Matching Model (LMM), a probability flow model trained with paired clean and noise data. Given $x_0$ from noise distribution, the authors use a pretrained diffusion model plus deterministic ODE-sampler to propose corresponding clean data $x_1$. The paired $x_0$ and $x_1$ are used to train the LMM using denoising loss. Together with perceptual loss and adversarial Loss, LMM achieves good performance on Cifar-10 (32x32), ImageNet (64x64) and AFHQ (64x64).
1.  The main idea of LMM is to utilize the ability of pretrained diffusion model to build matched data pairs that replace the random selected data pairs used in the original diffusion models. To me, this idea seems to have been already proposed and explored by many previous distillation works like [1,2,3]. The difference is that, works like [1,2] also consider the computational cost of this distillation. Thus, they only run one or two denoising steps instead of running the denoising process till the end to get clean samples. It is not surprising to me that when more computation is allowed, running the denoising towards clean samples can give better teaching signal to the new model.

2. Following 1, although in previous distillation works like [1], distilling diffusion model progressively might cause the error to accumulate, it is more computationally achievable to do so. Directly running the denoising process till clean samples might be achievable on low resolution datasets. It can be unaffordable on high resolution and more complex datasets. And when the data becomes even more complex, more ODE steps will be needed to generate the samples. This further increases the total data preparation time. As mentioned in the Appendix, to save training time, the authors need to pre-generate the samples for LMM. According to Table 6, the size of the generated dataset can be much larger than the size of the original dataset. For example, 1M samples are used for the Cifar-10 dataset while the original dataset only has 50K samples. This means more memory are needed to store the generated dataset.  I'm afraid the high memory cost can be formidable for more complex tasks like text-to-image generation, preventing the proposed method to be scaled up.

3. Though in Table 1, LMM shows strong FID scores comparing with other baselines, I note that this results should also be attributed to the usage of perceptual loss and adversarial loss. According to Table 7 in the appendix, the conditional generation FID scores for Cifar-10 with pure L2 loss are 5.125 (NFE=1) and 4.289 (NFE=2). If we directly brings these numbers to Table1, they do not seem to be very strong. And I would expect worse scores in the unconditional generation cases. Besides, the perceptual loss might be hard to be directly applied to the widely used latent diffusion models. In latent diffusion models, the denoising happens in the latent space, but the perceptual loss is defined in the image space. Decoding noisy latent data to image space to compute the perceptual loss at every training step can be inaccurate and expensive in both time and memory. This might further limited the usage of the proposed method.

[1] Progressive distillation for fast sampling of diffusion models
[2] Consistency models. 
[3] Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.
Describes a new generative Lines Matching Model that improves sampling efficiency and fidelity by relating the source and target distributions along straight line trajectories, achieving SOTA FID scores using few NFEs
@inproceedings{
anonymous2024generative,
title={Generative Lines Matching Models},
author={Anonymous},
booktitle={Submitted to The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations},
year={2024},
url={https://openreview.net/forum?id=a5EFuQuuPb},
note={under review}
}
In this paper we identify the source of a singularity in the training loss of key denoising models, that causes the denoiser's predictions to collapse towards the mean of the source or target distributions. This degeneracy creates false basins of attraction, distorting the denoising trajectories and ultimately increasing the number of steps required to sample these models.

We circumvent this artifact by leveraging the deterministic ODE-based samplers, offered by certain denoising diffusion and score-matching models, which establish a well-defined change-of-variables between the source and target distributions. Given this correspondence, we propose a new probability flow model, the Lines Matching Model (LMM), which matches globally straight lines interpolating the two distributions. We demonstrate that the flow fields produced by the LMM exhibit notable temporal consistency, resulting in trajectories with excellent straightness scores.

Beyond its sampling efficiency, the LMM formulation allows us to enhance the fidelity of the generated samples by integrating domain-specific reconstruction and adversarial losses, and by optimizing its training for the sampling procedure used. Overall, the LMM achieves state-of-the-art FID scores with minimal NFEs on established benchmark datasets: 1.57/1.39 (NFE=1/2) on CIFAR-10, 1.47/1.17 on ImageNet 64x64, and 2.68/1.54 on AFHQ 64x64.

Finally, we provide a theoretical analysis showing that the use of optimal transport to relate the two distributions suffers from a curse of dimensionality, where the pairing set size (mini-batch) must scale exponentially with the signal dimension.
I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Generative Flow Denoising Score Matching Denoising Diffusion Probability Models
I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
/pdf/f77e93e2db100d3ffa2eda5b072d3a563ef5c0d1.pdf
generative models
I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
/attachment/34a36ca4f62864e234cfa8266ae8c01a56e18574.zip
Generative Lines Matching Models
ICLR 2025 Conference Submission
ICLR.cc/2025/Conference/Submission