Organizations: University College London · Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence · Zhejiang University · Westlake University · Monash University
Analytical diffusion models offer a mathematically transparent path to generative modeling by formulating the denoising score as an empirical-Bayes posterior mean. However, this interpretability comes at a prohibitive cost: the standard formulation necessitates a full-dataset scan at every timestep, scaling linearly with dataset size. In this work, we present the first systematic study addressing this scalability bottleneck. We challenge the prevailing assumption that the entire training data is necessary, uncovering the phenomenon of Posterior Progressive Concentration: the effective golden support of the denoising score is not static but shrinks asymptotically from the global manifold to a local neighborhood as the signal-to-noise ratio increases. Capitalizing on this, we propose Dynamic Time-Aware Golden Subset Diffusion (GoldDiff), a training-free framework that decouples inference complexity from dataset size. Instead of static retrieval, GoldDiff uses a coarse-to-fine mechanism to dynamically pinpoint the ''Golden Subset'' for inference. Theoretically, we derive rigorous bounds guaranteeing that our sparse approximation converges to the exact score. Empirically, GoldDiff achieves a 71× speedup on AFHQ while matching or achieving even better performance than full-scan baselines. Most notably, we demonstrate the first successful scaling of analytical diffusion to ImageNet-1K, unlocking a scalable, training-free paradigm for large-scale generative modeling.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Phenomenon of Posterior Progressive Concentration. ★ denotes the initial noise, and the target distribution is the Moons data ( Pedregosa et al., 2011 ) . As the diffusion process reverses from pure noise to data (Left to Right), the golden support of the posterior distribution dynamically shrinks from the global manifold to a localized neighborhood.
Figure 2: Impact of Biased Weight Estimation. Due to biased weight estimation, PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 ) produces inherently over-smoothed outputs even with sufficient denoising steps.
Figure 3: Analysis of the SOTA method PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 ) for Subset Selection. (a) Evolution of the weight distribution during the denoising process. (b)–(c) Sensitivity analysis: (b) Performance evaluation of the analytical denoiser across varying random subset sizes ( Nsub∈{10,100,1000,5000} ) compared to the full CIFAR-10 dataset. (c) Visualization of intermediate generation outputs.
Method
Optimal
Wiener Filter
Kamb
PCA
GoldDiff (Ours)
Complexity
O(ND)
O(D2)
O(NptD2)
O(NptD)
O(Nd+mtptD)
Table 1: Algorithmic Complexity Comparison. D : flattened image dimension, N : dataset size, pt : patch size at step t .
Figure 4: Qualitative Comparison. We compare our GoldDiff (5th row) against four baselines: Optimal (1st row), Wiener filter (2nd row), Kamb ( Kamb and Ganguli, 2024 ) (3rd row), and the PCA model (4th row). All images are generated from the same initial noise using 10 steps of DDIM ( Song et al., 2020a ) . The last row displays reference samples generated by a trained U-Net ( Ho et al., 2020 ) .
Dataset
CIFAR-10
CelebA-HQ
AFHQ
Metric
Efficacy
Efficiency
Efficacy
Efficiency
Efficacy
Efficiency
Method
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Memory
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Memory
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Memory
Optimal ( De Bortoli, 2022 )
0.030
-0.401
2.353
0.020
0.021
0.010
1.244
0.055
0.039
-0.713
0.642
0.055
Wiener ( Wiener, 1949 )
0.008
0.553
0.011
0.290
0.012
0.781
0.153
4.509
0.010
0.687
0.156
4.509
Kamb ( Kamb and Ganguli, 2024 )
0.011
0.411
5.980
1.889
0.011
0.720
37.158
7.547
0.034
0.576
15.094
7.5471
PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 )
0.008
0.670
2.802
0.835
0.009
0.802
6.040
5.460
0.008
0.703
24.896
4.743
Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Analytical Denoisers. Here, Time denotes the sampling time cost (s) per step, and Memory denotes the peak memory (GB) usage during sampling. All metrics are averaged over 128 samples. The best and second-best results are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively. Efficacy gain (%) denotes the improvement relative to the second-best performance.
Total Steps
Method
Unconditional
Conditional
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
10
PCA
0.045
0.412
110.798
0.033
0.467
0.451
PCA (Unbaised)
0.042
0.435
110.986
0.032
0.473
0.453
GoldDiff
0.039
0.458
2.607
0.031
0.490
0.100
100
PCA
0.032
0.436
110.798
0.025
0.521
0.451
PCA (Unbaised)
0.036
0.425
110.986
0.035
0.411
0.453
Table 3: Quantitative Comparison on ImageNet-1K. We evaluate performance in both unconditional and conditional settings. All metrics are averaged over 128 samples, with the best results highlighted in bold . “Total Steps” denotes the total number of denoising steps, and we report results for 10 and 100 steps.
Figure 5: Qualitative Comparison of conditional Denoising on ImageNet-1K. We visualize samples generated by our method compared to two PCA-based baselines: Original PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 ) and Unbiased PCA (PCA-U) for the class “Tench”.
CIFAR-10
AFHQ
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
EDM-VP
Optimal
0.060
-0.238
0.053
0.028
Wiener
0.026
0.472
0.033
0.448
Kamb
0.031
0.350
0.034
0.461
PCA
0.023
0.594
0.029
0.524
GoldDiff
0.0195
0.654
0.024
0.588
Table 4: Validation on Diverse Neural Denoisers. All metrics are averaged over 128 samples.
Celeba-HQ
AFHQ
Method
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Optimal
0.021
0.010
1.244
0.039
-0.713
0.642
+ GoldDiff
0.014
0.134
0.338
0.035
-0.270
0.153
Kamb
0.011
0.720
37.158
0.034
0.576
15.094
+ GoldDiff
0.009
0.729
1.336
0.031
0.586
1.434
Table 5: Orthogonality to Existing Analytical Denoisers. All metrics are averaged over 128 samples.
Figure 6: Sensitivity Analysis of the coarse candidate set size and golden subset size across multiple datasets. Dashed lines mean the baseline PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 ) .
Celaba-HQ
AFHQ
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
GoldDiff
+ WSS
0.009
0.818
0.008
0.715
+SS
0.008
0.836
0.007
0.731
Table 6: Biased (WSS) vs. unbiased weight (SS) estimation. All metrics are averaged over 128 samples.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
MNIST
Fashion-MNIST
Metric
Efficacy
Efficiency
Efficacy
Efficiency
Method
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Mem.
MSE ( ↓ )
r2 ( ↑ )
Time
Mem.
Optimal ( De Bortoli, 2022 )
0.047
0.435
2.806
0.013
0.033
0.514
2.608
0.013
Wiener ( Wiener, 1949 )
0.034
0.594
0.001
0.026
0.031
0.589
0.001
0.026
Kamb ( Kamb and Ganguli, 2024 )
0.043
0.489
4.115
2.188
0.051
0.294
3.903
2.188
PCA ( Lukoianov et al., 2025 )
0.027
0.684
2.798
0.204
0.015
0.795
2.791
0.204
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative Comparison of Analytical Denoisers on MNIST and Fashion-MNIST. Time (s) and Memory (GB) are averaged over 128 samples. Best and second-best results are bolded and underlined , respectively.
Inference-time scaling has emerged as a major approach for improving reasoning capabilities, and has been increasingly applied to diffusion models. However, existing inference-time scaling methods for diffusion models typically rely on external verifiers or reward models to rank and select samples, limiting their scalability to settings where such evaluators are available and reliable. Moreover, while recent diffusion models perform sequential inference with region-wise, mixed-noise conditioning, inference-time scaling tailored to this setting remains relatively underexplored. We propose Iterative Partial Refinement (IPR), an inference-time scaling method for sequential diffusion that requires no external verifier. Starting from an already-generated sample, IPR re-noises a subset of regions and regenerates them conditioned on the remaining regions, enabling the model to revise earlier decisions under a richer context than was available during the initial generation. This iterative partial refinement produces more globally consistent samples without external verification. On reasoning tasks requiring global constraint satisfaction, IPR consistently improves performance: on MNIST Sudoku, the valid solution rate increases from 55.8% to 75.0%. These results show that iterative partial refinement alone can serve as an effective inference-time scaling strategy for diffusion models in sequential, mixed-noise settings. Code is available at: https://github.com/ahn-ml/IPR
Diffusion and flow-matching models dominate conditional image generation, yet inference-time scaling for these models is far less developed than for autoregressive language models. Because final quality is highly sensitive to the initial noise seed, many approaches spend extra compute on seed search or resampling under a black-box reward, but typically maintaining a constant memory footprint throughout inference. We show that relaxing this constraint enables an underexplored inference-time scaling axis: by front-loading exploration, evaluating many seeds early, and pruning aggressively, we can use a fixed compute budget more effectively. Progressive Seed Pruning (\PSP) scores intermediate denoised estimates and progressively narrows the candidate set so that only promising trajectories are fully denoised, while keeping the total number of model evaluations fixed. Across diffusion and flow-matching backbones, \PSP \ consistently improves reward-guided selection and achieves higher GenEval scores (automated) and better human evaluation on prompt-alignment than best-of-N, importance-sampling, and tree-search baselines at matched compute. Project page: https://www.vision.caltech.edu/psp. Code: https://github.com/rogerioagjr/psp.
Rogerio Guimaraes, Pietro Perona
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena CA 91125, USA
Despite the empirical success of score-based diffusion models, a complete theoretical understanding of how finite-sample learning, network parameterization, and numerical discretization jointly dictate generative quality remains underdeveloped. Existing sampling analyses often evaluate the generative performance conditional on an oracle score or a pre-specified error threshold. In this work, we establish a unified convergence and generalization framework for score-based diffusion models parameterized by practical ResNet-type architectures. We analyze the generalization and convergence properties from the practical finite-sample, discrete-time learning problem of the score function to the ideal continuous-time, population-level objective. Based on the generalization result of the learning problem of score function, we analyze the sampling process induced by the learned score function and provide an end-to-end total variation distance estimate for the generated terminal distribution. This estimate explicitly decomposes the overall generative error into four interpretable components: the truncation error of the forward process, the reverse-time discretization error, the generalization error incorporating both finite data and forward-time discretization, and the training optimization gap. Our results quantitatively characterize how the training sample size, temporal discretization grids, and optimization accuracy jointly control the final fidelity of samples generated by diffusion models.
Jinshu Huang, Yiming Jiang, Chunlin Wu
School of Mathematical Sciences, Nankai University, Tianjin, China