Simulating the conditioned dynamics of diffusion processes, given their initial and terminal states, is an important but challenging problem in the sciences. The difficulty is particularly pronounced for rare events, for which the unconditioned dynamics rarely reach the terminal state. In this work, we propose a novel approach for learning diffusion bridges based on a self-consistency property of the optimal control. The resulting algorithm learns the conditioned dynamics in an iterative online manner, and exhibits strong performance in a range of empirical settings without requiring differentiation through simulated trajectories. Beyond the diffusion bridge setting, we draw connections between our self-consistency framework and recent advances in the wider stochastic optimal control literature.
Figures & tables
Figure 1
Figure 3: Comparison of our proposed approach CCDB (using self-consistency properties ( SC1 ) and ( SC2 )), and Neural Guided Diffusion Bridge (NGDB) ( Yang et al., 2025 ) , in the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck bridge experiment (mean ± std, over 5 runs).
CIR model, KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Double Well, v=3.0 , KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Cell Diffusion, KL(Pθ∥P)↓
Normal
Rare
Multimodal
CCDB (Ours) , using ( SC1 )
0.023 ± 0.010 •
0.148 ± 0.073 • / ▲
6.53 ± 0.14 •
66.1 ± 0.9 •
792.8 ± 0.9 • / ▲
CCDB (Ours) , using ( SC2 )
0.055 ± 0.009 • / ▲
0.041 ± 0.013 •
6.53 ± 0.17 •
66.0 ± 0.5 •
792.4 ± 1.0 • / ▲
NGDB ( Yang et al., 2025 )
0.051 ± 0.012 • / ▲
0.098 ± 0.047 • / ▲
6.48 ± 0.15 •
65.5 ± 0.6 •
783.4 ± 0.8 •
SDB ( Heng et al., 2025 )
0.104 ± 0.011 ▲
0.229 ± 0.024 ▲
5.56 ± 0.39*
75.0 ± 5.1 ▲
1845 ± 230 ■
FB ( Baker et al., 2025 )
0.074 ± 0.011 ▲
-
6.51 ± 0.14 •
237 ± 98 ■
4836 ± 954 ■
Table 1: Quantitative results for experiments (mean ± std over 5 runs). Methods that perform strongly are indicated by • , those with reasonable performance by ▲ , and methods that fail to converge to the correct solution by ■ . We note the result marked with an asterisk* is likely unreliable as it gave an extremely large control towards the endpoint, causing the integration to underestimate the correct value.
Table 4
Figure 4: (Left) Learned trajectories for the Müller–Brown potential, for our method using ( SC2 ). (Middle) Ramachandran plot showing obtained paths for alanine dipeptide. (Right) Energy of an individual transition path for alanine dipeptide.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
dXtθ=(b+(σσ⊤)uθ)(t,Xtθ)dt+σ(t,Xtθ)dBt,
(43)
Appendix
Algorithm 2 Control Consistency Diffusion Bridge (Generalised version)
Algorithm 3 Computing training targets along a single trajectory (generalised version)
Figure 5: Comparison of performance on the double-well experiment, for different barrier height parameters v .
Figure 6: Visualisation of the learned trajectories for each method in the normal , rare , and multimodal cell diffusion examples. The experimental setting is taken from Yang et al. (2025) , using the cell differentiation model from Wang et al. (2011) . Results in the leftmost column are obtained using the MCMC-based guided proposal approach from Schauer et al. (2017) .
Figure 7: Comparison of the trajectories obtained using our method, in the Müller-Brown examples.
KL(Pθ∥P)↓
Max Energy
Ours (using ( SC2 ))
27.0 ± 1.2
-35.2 ± 5.13
NGDB ( Yang et al., 2025 )
29.1 ± 0.8
-33.7 ± 5.8
DL ( Du et al., 2024 )
39.2 ± 0.4
-32.0 ± 6.2
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of results for the 100 d Müller–Brown experiment. Metrics are evaluated using the leading two dimensions corresponding to the Müller–Brown potential. The values for KL(Pθ∥P) show mean ± std over 5 runs, while the Max Energy values report the average mean and average std over the 5 runs.
Figure 8: Visualisations of the obtained trajectories transitioning from the C5 state (upper left) to the C7ax state (lower right), displayed on Ramachandran plots showing the dihedral angles. (Left) Our method, using ( SC2 ). (Right) NGDB.
Figure 13
CIR model, KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Double Well, v=3.0 , KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Cell Diffusion, KL(Pθ∥P)↓
Normal
Rare
Multimodal
Using ( SC1 ), next-step
0.021 ± 0.007
0.126 ± 0.069
7.38 ± 0.49
74.6 ± 14.1
959.9 ± 55.3
Using ( SC1 ), average
0.023 ± 0.010
0.148 ± 0.073
6.53 ± 0.14
66.1 ± 0.9
792.8 ± 0.9
Using ( SC1 ), endpoint
0.026 ± 0.005
3.49 ± 2.40
6.79 ± 0.10
69.1 ± 1.1
793.0 ± 1.0
Using ( SC2 ), next-step
0.042 ± 0.022
0.067 ± 0.044
6.95 ± 0.29
68.6 ± 1.9
1136.2 ± 288.9
Using ( SC2 ), average
0.055 ± 0.009
0.041 ± 0.013
6.53 ± 0.17
66.0 ± 0.5
792.4 ± 1.0
Appendix
Table 6: Quantitative results for experiments, comparing α -schedules (mean ± std, over 5 runs).
CIR model, KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Double Well, v=3.0 , KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Cell Diffusion, KL(Pθ∥P)↓
Normal
Rare
Multimodal
Using ( SC1 ), without STL
0.023 ± 0.010
0.148 ± 0.073
6.53 ± 0.14
66.1 ± 0.9
792.8 ± 0.9
Using ( SC1 ), with STL
0.016 ± 0.001
0.042 ± 0.024
6.47 ± 0.16
65.7 ± 0.6
792.4 ± 1.0
Using ( SC2 ), without STL
0.055 ± 0.009
0.041 ± 0.013
6.53 ± 0.17
66.0 ± 0.5
792.4 ± 1.0
Using ( SC2 ), with STL
0.051 ± 0.007
0.022 ± 0.015
6.48 ± 0.14
66.1 ± 0.5
792.6 ± 0.8
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative results for experiments, comparing performance with and without STL adjustments (mean ± std, over 5 runs).
CIR model, KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Double Well, v=3.0 , KL(P∗∥Pθ)↓
Cell Diffusion, KL(Pθ∥P)↓
Normal
Rare
Multimodal
Using ( SC1 ), with ηθ=∇ψθ
0.023 ± 0.010
0.148 ± 0.073
6.53 ± 0.14
66.1 ± 0.9
792.8 ± 0.9
Using ( SC1 ), with general ηθ
0.025 ± 0.009
0.080 ± 0.033
6.49 ± 0.12
66.2 ± 0.6
979.5 ± 2.0
Using ( SC2 ), with ηθ=∇ψθ
0.055 ± 0.009
0.041 ± 0.013
6.53 ± 0.17
66.0 ± 0.5
792.4 ± 1.0
Using ( SC2 ), with general ηθ
0.057 ± 0.008
0.028 ± 0.013
6.51 ± 0.15
66.1 ± 0.5
792.8 ± 1.1
Appendix
Table 8: Quantitative results for experiments, comparing parameterisations using a general neural adjustment ηθ with a gradient-form neural adjustment ηθ=∇ψθ (mean ± std, over 5 runs).
v=2
v=3
v=4
b~=0 ( SC1 )
0.039 ± 0.011
0.204 ± 0.100
0.584 ± 0.346
b~=−31b
0.036 ± 0.012
0.091 ± 0.032
0.192 ± 0.045
b~=−32b
0.034 ± 0.006
0.072 ± 0.026
0.146 ± 0.033
b~=−b ( SC2 )
0.035 ± 0.006
0.081 ± 0.004
0.153 ± 0.016
Appendix
Table 9: Results for different choices of b~ interpolating from ( SC1 ) to ( SC2 ), for different barrier heights v in the double-well experiment (mean ± std over 5 runs, using average α -schedule, 1e-4 learning rate, and 2000 training steps).
Training step
200
400
600
800
1000
Using ( SC1 )
0.12
0.078
0.067
0.052
0.046
Using ( SC2 )
0.15
0.088
0.070
0.061
0.055
Appendix
Table 10: Convergence speed of training objectives ( SC1 ) and ( SC2 ) in the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck example (KL divergence to ground-truth, mean over 5 runs).
Figure 10: Connections between self-consistency properties for stochastic optimal control, showing the integrand Φ(Xu) such that u(s,Xsu)=E[Φ(Xu)∣Xsu=x] . (Left) The expressions contain the Jacobian process Jt∣s for the base dynamics X , analogous to ( SC1 ) from the main paper. (Middle) Generalised versions, containing the Jacobian J~t∣s for an auxiliary process X~ . These are analogous to the generalised self-consistency property in ( SC-gen ). (Right) The expressions take J~t∣s=Id , analogous to ( SC2 ) from the main paper. Top line: When restricted to the terminal time t=T , these self-consistency relations recover recently introduced objectives in the SOC and generative modelling literature ( Domingo-Enrich et al., 2025 ; Domingo-Enrich, 2024 ) . Bottom Line: In the case of zero running costs, the SOC self-consistency properties coincide with those presented in the main paper, which form the basis of our method for learning diffusion bridge dynamics.
Most modern bridge-diffusion methods achieve finite-time transport by specifying an interpolation, Schrödinger-bridge, or stochastic-control objective and then learning the associated score or drift field with a neural network. In contrast, we identify a restricted but sufficiently broad and analytically solvable class in which the score, intermediate marginals, and protocol gradients are available in closed form without inner stochastic simulation loops and without neural networks in the optimization loop. We recast the classical linear--quadratic--Gaussian (LQG) stochastic-control structure as a transport problem of the Path Integral Diffusion (PID) type. In classical LQG control, linear dynamics, Gaussian noise, and quadratic costs lead to Riccati equations and closed-form optimal feedback. In LQ-GM-PID, we retain the linear--quadratic stochastic-control backbone, but replace terminal state regulation by a prescribed terminal probability density and allow both the initial and terminal laws to be Gaussian Mixtures (GM). Moreover, LQ-GM-PID turns bridge diffusion from a tool for terminal target matching alone into a tool for path shaping. We demonstrate this on a 2D corridor task, a 2D multi-entrance transport task, and a high-dimensional scaling study with d=32 and M=16 Gaussian-mixture terminal modes, all with sub-50,ms analytic precompute on a laptop. We position LQ-GM-PID as an analytically solvable reference model for the state-of-the-art neural bridge-diffusion and generative-transport methods: a controlled setting in which neural approximations, score estimates, path-shaping objectives, and protocol-learning procedures can be tested against exact quantities.
Michael Chertkov
Program in Applied Mathematics & Department of Mathematics University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA
The Schrödinger bridge problem is concerned with finding a stochastic dynamical system bridging two marginal distributions that minimises a certain transportation cost. This problem, which represents a generalisation of optimal transport to the stochastic case, has received attention due to its connections to diffusion models and flow matching, as well as its applications in the natural sciences. However, all existing algorithms allow to infer such dynamics only for cases where samples from both distributions are available. In this paper, we propose the first general method for modelling Schrödinger bridges when one (or both) distributions are given by their unnormalised densities, with no access to data samples. Our algorithm relies on a generalisation of the iterative proportional fitting (IPF) procedure to the data-free case, inspired by recent developments in off-policy reinforcement learning for training of diffusion samplers. We demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed data-to-energy IPF on synthetic problems, finding that it can successfully learn transports between multimodal distributions. As a secondary consequence of our reinforcement learning formulation, which assumes a fixed time discretisation scheme for the dynamics, we find that existing data-to-data Schrödinger bridge algorithms can be substantially improved by learning the diffusion coefficient of the dynamics. Finally, we apply the newly developed algorithm to the problem of sampling posterior distributions in latent spaces of generative models, thus creating a data-free image-to-image translation method. Code: https://github.com/mmacosha/d2e-stochastic-dynamics
Diffusion bridge models offer a powerful framework for connecting two data distributions, such as in image restoration and translation. Many existing methods learn this bridge by mimicking the score-matching formulation of standard diffusion models. In this work, we find that this way leads to an anomalous underfitting phenomenon near the target endpoint, as the process approaches the target distribution (t→0). This underfitting, characterized by significant drift in the predicted variance and direction, results from an excessively large discrepancy in noise levels between the network's input and its regression target.To resolve this issue, we propose the Noise-Aligned Diffusion Bridge (NADB).Our approach reformulates the diffusion bridge by first employing a mean network to provide a cleaner conditional target, and then introducing a novel, noise-aligned mapping relationship. This new formulation resolves the noise mismatch and corrects the underfitting near the target endpoint. Experimental validation across multiple image restoration and image translation tasks demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach. Code is available at https://github.com/gyr02/NADB.