Aligning large-scale text-to-image diffusion models with nuanced human preferences remains challenging. While direct preference optimization (DPO) is simple and effective, large-scale finetuning often shows a generalization gap. We take inspiration from test-time guidance and cast preference alignment as classifier-free guidance (CFG): a finetuned preference model acts as an external control signal during sampling. Building on this view, we propose a simple method that improves alignment without retraining the base model. To further enhance generalization, we decouple preference learning into two modules trained on positive and negative data, respectively, and form a contrastive guidance vector at inference by subtracting their predictions (positive minus negative), scaled by a user-chosen strength and added to the base prediction at each step. This yields a sharper and controllable alignment signal. We evaluate on Stable Diffusion 1.5 and Stable Diffusion XL with Pick-a-Pic v2 and HPDv3, showing consistent quantitative and qualitative gains.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Toy 2D experiment on DPO (top) and our proposed PGD (below) to demonstrate the overfitting issue in DPO training. Black circles indicate positive sample clusters and red crosses indicate negative sample clusters. w is the guidance weight of PGD and β is the DPO scale parameter.
Figure 2
Figure 4: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO, PGD, and cPGD. PGD and cPGD achieves the highest rewards and is the most effective in aligning with human preference implied in the Pick-a-Pic v2 dataset.
Pick-a-Pic v2 test (424 prompts)
Parti-Prompts (1632 prompts)
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Avg. ↑
–
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
NPO
58.7
59.2
69.1
52.1
37.5
53.5
55.0
56.4
62.1
55.1
39.0
51.5
54.1
PGD
78.8
79.0
73.6
51.9
63.7
69.3
78.7
78.4
78.2
68.8
54.0
69.1
7 0.3
SDXL
cPGD
80.0
80.2
77.1
50.9
64.9
69.8
75.8
80.3
77.8
57.2
62.0
74.0
70.8
–
71.7
77.6
67.9
53.3
61.6
65.8
64.0
70.3
64.0
57.5
58.5
69.7
65.2
Table 1: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SDXL model on the Pick-a-Pic v2 test set and the Parti-Prompts benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors. The 1st-best results are bolded and the 2nd-best results are underlined .
Pick-a-Pic v2 test (424 prompts)
Parti-Prompts (1632 prompts)
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Avg. ↑
–
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
PGD
78.3
71.2
67.9
62.3
58.5
63.7
68.0
65.0
59.6
58.1
55.0
56.9
6 3.7
SD1.5
cPGD
76.9
71.7
71.9
63.2
59.9
72.2
66.4
76.9
68.9
68.1
58.4
71.0
68.8
–
76.4
67.7
66.3
65.1
55.9
60.6
67.3
64.8
64.5
62.2
53.6
61.0
63.8
PGD
79.2
70.3
66.3
66.3
59.4
63.2
74.2
67.4
65.0
63.1
55.5
62.9
6 6.1
Table 2: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SD1.5 model on the Pick-a-Pic v2 test set and the Parti-Prompts benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors. The 1st-best results are bolded and the 2nd-best results are underlined .
Figure 5: Overall comparison on SDXL. Radar axes report mean scores (higher is better): PickScore (PS), HPSv2, HPSv3, CLIP, and ImageReward (IR). Polygons closer to the outer rim indicate better aggregate performance across metrics.
Figure 7
Figure 8: Qualitative effect of increasing guidance weight w (left → right). Rows show text fidelity, semantic binding, and aesthetic style. Stronger w improves alignment and legibility up to a mid range, after which overshooting/rigidity appears.
Figure 9: Effect of guidance weight w on automatic metrics (SDXL). Left: PickScore; Middle: CLIP score; Right: HPSv3. “Step” denotes the training steps of the guidance module. Curves rise quickly for small w ,
Set
Method
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Subset
SDXL
0.222
0.277
7.079
6.052
0.363
0.658
DPO
0.225
0.282
8.032
6.112
0.361
0.823
PGD
0.226
0.285
9.459
6.203
0.364
0.874
cPGD
0.228
0.289
10.045
6.267
0.365
1.031
Fullset
SDXL
0.222
0.277
7.079
6.052
0.363
0.658
DPO
0.226
0.284
8.261
6.165
0.366
0.918
Table 3: Impact of preference data variance on alignment performance. “Subset” refers to training on a high-quality curated subset (low variance), while “Fullset” uses the full HPDv3 dataset (high variance). The 1st-best results are in bold and the 2nd-best are underlined . All methods are applied to the base SDXL model.
Figure 10: Win rate (%) of different finetuned models on different reward models. For each prompt (with same random seeds), we score images from all three models and report the proportion on which each model achieves the highest score. Results show that cPGD-distill is superior.
Figure 11: Negative pair examples of HPDv3
Figure 12: Positive pair examples of HPDv3
Figure 13: The real 2-D data and the pretrain distribution on the Toy 2D experiment.
Figure 14: Toy 2D experiment on DPO with different values of β .
Figure 15: The positive and negative SFT components of the DPO loss on the toy 2D experiment.
Figure 16: Toy 2D experiment on SFT. The top row shows SFT on positive samples only (SFT+); the bottom row shows SFT on the negative samples (SFT-).
Figure 17: Toy 2D experiment on PGD for different guidance weights w .
Method
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Avg. ↑
SDXL
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
NPO
58.7
59.2
69.1
52.1
37.5
53.5
55.0
MaPO
55.9
65.3
61.8
68.2
50.2
68.2
61.6
DPO
71.7
77.6
67.9
53.3
61.6
65.8
66.3
PGD-merge
87.0
88.9
84.4
59.9
63.7
77.6
76.9
cPGD-merge
76.2
84.2
72.4
45.0
68.9
71.7
69.7
Table 4: Win rates(%) of preference optimization methods against the SDXL model on the Pick-a-Pic v2 test set. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors. The 1st-best results are bolded.
Figure 18: Plug-and-play transfer to KOALA using an SDXL PGD/cPGD score module. Pairwise preference rates (%) of PGD-KOALA (top) and cPGD-KOALA (bottom) against the original KOALA baseline under four evaluation metrics (PS, IR, CLIP, HPSv2). The dashed vertical line denotes parity at 50%; values above 50% indicate that the guided model is preferred. All gains are obtained without any training or fine-tuning of KOALA , highlighting the plug-and-play nature of PGD/cPGD under shared latent-space (VAE) alignment.
Method
Votes
Vote share (%)
Raw
208
18.9
DPO
324
29.5
MaPO
197
17.9
NPO
256
23.3
PGD
500
45.5
cPGD
363
33.0
Table 5: Summary of human preference votes. Participants could select 1–3 images per question, hence the total number of votes exceeds the number of questions.
Figure 19: Comparison of SFT training with and without wDPO weighting. Blue bars indicate naive SFT, and orange bars indicate weighted SFT. All results are obtained under the cPGD inference strategy with the same guidance weight.
Guided steps s
PickScore win rate (%)
Time ratio ( × vs. SDXL)
10
70.2
1.4
20
72.4
1.8
30
74.8
2.2
40
76.9
2.6
50
79.1
3.0
Table 6: Guiding only the first s of 50 steps on SDXL (cPGD).
Figure 20: Effect of guidance weight w on automatic metrics (SDXL). Left: ImageReward; Right: HPSv2. “Step” denotes the training steps of the guidance module. Curves rise quickly for small w ,
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
79.95%
80.19%
77.12%
50.94%
64.86%
69.81%
70.48%
PGD
78.77%
79.01%
73.58%
51.89%
63.68%
69.34%
69.38%
SDXL
NPO
58.73%
59.20%
69.10%
52.12%
37.50%
53.54%
55.03%
–
71.70%
77.59%
67.92%
53.30%
61.56%
65.80%
66.31%
cPGD
80.90%
77.59%
84.67%
63.92%
58.73%
64.86%
71.78%
Table 7: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SDXL model on the Pick-a-Pic v2 test set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
76.50%
75.50%
71.25%
52.25%
59.00%
69.00%
67.25%
PGD
85.50%
73.50%
78.75%
69.25%
46.75%
73.00%
71.13%
SDXL
NPO
63.75%
65.00%
78.75%
60.50%
42.75%
55.50%
61.04%
–
66.75%
73.75%
66.00%
59.75%
55.25%
73.00%
65.75%
cPGD
75.25%
79.50%
71.25%
57.75%
61.00%
73.00%
69.63%
Table 8: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SDXL model on the HPD v2 test set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
75.80%
80.27%
77.82%
57.23%
62.01%
74.02%
71.19%
PGD
78.74%
78.37%
78.19%
68.75%
53.98%
69.06%
71.18%
SDXL
NPO
55.02%
56.37%
62.07%
55.09%
38.97%
51.53%
53.18%
–
63.97%
70.28%
64.03%
57.54%
58.46%
69.73%
64.00%
cPGD
73.90%
79.23%
72.79%
59.38%
64.09%
74.45%
70.64%
Table 9: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SDXL model on the Parti-Prompts set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
76.89%
71.70%
71.93%
63.21%
59.91%
72.17%
69.30%
SD1.5
PGD
78.30%
71.23%
67.92%
62.26%
58.49%
63.68%
66.98%
–
76.42%
67.69%
66.27%
65.09%
55.90%
60.61%
65.33%
cPGD
79.01%
81.84%
75.47%
71.70%
62.26%
76.18%
74.41%
DPO-SD1.5
PGD
79.25%
70.28%
66.27%
66.27%
59.43%
63.21%
67.45%
Table 10: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SD1.5 model on the Pick-a-Pic v2 test set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
80.50%
88.00%
84.00%
73.00%
61.25%
79.50%
77.71%
SD1.5
PGD
75.25%
68.00%
67.00%
67.25%
52.25%
65.50%
65.88%
–
76.25%
69.75%
68.00%
66.50%
57.50%
65.25%
67.21%
cPGD
80.25%
81.00%
79.00%
70.25%
60.75%
75.75%
74.50%
DPO-SD1.5
PGD
79.00%
73.75%
71.75%
66.00%
54.75%
68.50%
68.96%
Table 11: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SD1.5 model on the HPD v2 test set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Base Model
Inference Strategy
PS ↑
HPSv2 ↑
HPSv3 ↑
Aes ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Average ↑
–
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
cPGD
66.36%
76.90%
68.87%
68.14%
58.39%
71.02%
68.28%
SD1.5
PGD
68.01%
65.01%
59.56%
58.15%
54.96%
56.86%
60.43%
–
67.34%
64.83%
64.46%
62.19%
53.55%
61.03%
62.23%
cPGD
73.84%
74.08%
69.61%
69.00%
59.01%
67.34%
68.81%
DPO-SD1.5
PGD
74.20%
67.40%
65.01%
63.05%
55.51%
62.87%
64.68%
Table 12: Win rates of preference optimization methods against the SD1.5 model on the Parti-Prompts set benchmark. Model checkpoints for other methods are provided by their respective authors.
Figure 21: General Results with SDXL, SD1.5.
Figure 22: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and PGD.
Figure 23: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and PGD.
Figure 24: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and PGD.
Figure 25: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and cPGD.
Figure 26: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and cPGD.
Figure 27: Comparison of preference-optimization methods on SDXL. Columns show outputs from the base model (SDXL), DPO, MaPO, NPO and cPGD.
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has been popular for aligning text-to-image (T2I) diffusion models with human preferences. As a mainstream branch of RLHF, Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) offers a computationally efficient alternative that avoids explicit reward modeling and has been widely adopted in diffusion alignment. However, existing preference-based methods for diffusion alignment still rely on reward-induced preference signals and typically assume that human preferences can be adequately modeled by the Bradley--Terry (BT) model, which may fail to capture the full complexity of human preferences. In this paper, we formulate diffusion alignment from a game-theoretic perspective. We propose Diffusion Nash Preference Optimization (Diff.-NPO), an intuitive general preference framework for diffusion alignment. Diff.-NPO encourages the current policy to play against itself to achieve self improvement and lead to a better alignment. Empirically, we demonstrate the effectiveness of Diff.-NPO on the text-to-image generation task via various metrics. Diff.-NPO consistently outperforms existing preference-based diffusion alignment methods.
Jiaming Hu, Jiamu Bai, Haoyu Wang +2
Boston University · Penn State University · University at Albany
Preference optimization has emerged as an efficient alternative to online reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) for aligning text-to-image diffusion models. However, existing methods largely reduce supervision to binary pairwise comparisons. This pairwise reduction is limiting when training data naturally contains multiple candidate images for the same prompt, and when continuous reward scores can provide richer information than a single winner-loser label. To address these limitations, we propose Diffusion LAIR, a reward-aware listwise preference optimization method for diffusion models. For each prompt, LAIR converts reward scores across a group of candidate images into centered advantage weights, then optimizes an advantage-weighted regression objective on the implicit reward, defined as the denoising-loss improvement of the current model over a fixed reference model, with a quadratic penalty that regularizes the magnitude of the implicit reward. The resulting objective uses all candidates simultaneously rather than selecting pairs, and remains conservative by explicitly controlling the magnitude of the implicit reward. The LAIR objective admits a bounded closed-form optimum in implicit-reward space, clarifying how the regularization strength controls the magnitude of the preference update. Experiments show that Diffusion LAIR outperforms strong preference optimization baselines on SD1.5 and SDXL across text-to-image generation, compositional generation, and image editing benchmarks.
Preference alignment aims to guide generative models by learning from comparisons between preferred and non-preferred samples. In practice, most existing approaches rely on preference pairs constructed from model-generated images. Such supervision is inherently relative and can be ambiguous when both samples exhibit artifacts or limited visual quality, making it difficult to infer what constitutes a truly desirable output. In this work, we investigate whether real data can serve as an alternative source of supervision for preference alignment. We adopt a data-centric perspective and study a curation strategy that treats real images as reference points and constructs preference signals by contrasting them with generated or perturbed samples, without requiring manually annotated preference pairs. Through empirical analysis, we show that real-data-based supervision provides effective guidance for aligning diffusion models and achieves performance comparable to existing preference-based methods. Our results suggest that real data offers a practical and complementary source of supervision for preference alignment and highlight directions of label-efficient alignment strategies. Code and models are available at https://cwyxx.github.io/RealAlign.
Weiyan Chen, Weijian Deng, Yao Xiao +5
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China · Australian National University, Canberra, Australia +2