The Noise-Transmission Burden of Diffusion Network: Why Image Prediction Can Outperform Noise Prediction
Read the original on arXiv Statistics ML →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Statistics ML.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Statistics ML.
arXiv:2610.14136v2 Announce Type: new Abstract: Iterative sampling in diffusion models can lead to error accumulation due to exposure bias. The denoiser is trained on real images interpolated with no...
arXiv:2608. 15144v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Posterior sampling with a pretrained diffusion prior is governed by a conditional score whose intermediate likelihood component is generally intractable.
Pixel‑Space Diffusion via Observation Operators introduces a new framework for pixel‑space diffusion models that addresses a scale‑time mismatch in existing methods. By replacing fixed full‑image supervision with a time‑indexed observation trajectory that progresses from coarse structures to the full image, the model aligns supervision with the natural recovery order of image details. The approach employs Gaussian‑Lanczos operators and a GL‑CoDA decoder to refine features progressively, resulting in faster convergence and higher generation quality, achieving an FID of 1.52 on ImageNet‑256.
arXiv:2610. 10190v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We analyze the first-order deterministic diffusion sampler of Karras et al.
Pixel diffusion models generate RGB images directly but tend to miss fine‑scale natural‑image statistics. The authors introduce an adversarial post‑training step that adds an adversarial loss to the model’s output at non‑high‑noise timesteps, without changing the architecture or sampling procedure. This approach improves distribution fidelity, coverage, prompt alignment, and perceptual quality across two pixel backbones, and restores missing high‑frequency spectral power while avoiding memorization or mode dropping.
The paper argues that the concrete random noise used in diffusion models is not merely a passive perturbation but a learnable input that can be exploited by the model. By analyzing how clean data and realized noise jointly form the noisy input, the authors show that the model can learn regularities in the data or in the noise structure, and that these two routes can interact. Experiments on MNIST and CIFAR‑10 using pseudorandom streams demonstrate that structured‑noise training can reduce prediction loss, but this advantage disappears when test noise is replaced with IID noise, indicating that the learned dependence is tied to the specific noise structure.