PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Towards More Accurate Diffusion Model Acceleration with A Timestep Aligner

Mengfei Xia, Yujun Shen, Changsong Lei, Yu Zhou, Ran Yi, Deli Zhao, Wenping Wang, Yong-jin Liu

generative modelsGenerative modeldiffusion model
77.50100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
74.90100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)
74.90100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.39)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We propose a performance booster for a given acceleration method upon a pre-trained diffusion model by aligning the sampling and the real distributions.

Abstract

A diffusion model, which is formulated to produce an image using thousands of denoising steps, usually suffers from a slow inference speed. Existing acceleration algorithms simplify the sampling by skipping most steps yet observe considerable performance degradation. By viewing the generation of diffusion models as a discretized integrating process, we argue that the quality drop is partly caused by applying an inaccurate integral direction to a timestep interval. To rectify such inaccuracy, we propose a \textbf{timestep aligner} that helps find a more accurate integral direction for a particular interval at the minimum cost. Specifically, at each denoising step, we replace the original parameterization by conditioning the network on a new timestep, which is obtained by aligning the sampling distribution to the real distribution. Extensive experiments show that our plug-in design can be trained efficiently and boost the inference performance of various state-of-the-art acceleration methods, especially for the one with few denoising steps. For example, when using 10 denoising steps on the popular LSUN Bedroom dataset, we improve the FID of DDIM from 9.65 to 6.07, simply by adopting our method for a more appropriate set of timesteps. Code will be made publicly available.

Author context

Most prolific author: 8 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 42)