Training-free diffusion priors enable inverse-problem solvers without retraining, but for nonlinear forward operators data consistency often relies on repeated derivatives or inner optimization/MCMC loops with conservative step sizes, incurring many iterations and denoiser/score evaluations. We propose a training-free solver that replaces these inner loops with a hard measurement-space feasibility constraint (closed-form projection) and an analytic, model-optimal step size, enabling a small, fixed compute budget per noise level. Anchored at the denoiser prediction, the correction is approximated via an adjoint-free, ADMM-style splitting with projection and a few steepest-descent updates, using one VJP and either one JVP or a forward-difference probe, followed by backtracking and decoupled re-annealing. We prove local model optimality and descent under backtracking for the step-size rule, and derive an explicit KL bound for mode-substitution re-annealing under a local Gaussian conditional surrogate. We also develop a latent variant and a one-parameter pixel→latent hybrid schedule. Experiments achieve competitive PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS with up to 19.5× speedup, without hand-coded adjoints or inner MCMC.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: FFHQ results on four inverse problems: (a) Gaussian deblurring, (b) phase retrieval, (c) random inpainting, (d) HDR. Each panel shows the measurement, baselines, our fast-dips output, and the reference. SSIM/LPIPS and average per-image run-time (s) are overlaid; fast-dips attains comparable or higher quality with markedly lower run-time.
Figure 2: fast-dips method sketch. At each noise level t , we (1) compute a denoiser anchor x0∣t , (2) perform a hard-constrained measurement-space correction under an ℓ2 feasibility ball via a few-step ADMM-style splitting (closed-form projection + a few descent steps with analytic α⋆ using one VJP and either one JVP or a forward-difference probe), and (3) re-anneal to obtain xt−1 .
Figure 3: Quantitative evaluations comparing image quality and computational time for baseline methods. Each point is derived from an experiment on 100 FFHQ images. The y-axis value (PSNR or LPIPS) is the mean of the scores from the 100 resulting images. The x-axis value is the average per-image run-time, calculated by dividing the total processing time for all 100 images by 100. The plots show results for three linear tasks (a-c) and one nonlinear task (d).
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Algorithm
Parameter
Linear task
Non Linear task
Super Resolution 4×
Inpaint (Box)
Inpaint (Random)
Gaussian deblurring
Motion deblurring
Phase retrieval
Nonlinear deblurring
High dynamic range
FAST-DIPS
T
75
75
75
50
50
150
150
150
K
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
S
1
1
1
2
2
5
5
5
ρ
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
5
ε
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Appendix
Table 3: The hyperparameters of experiments in paper for all tasks.
Figure 5
Figure 5: Qualitative results for JPEG restoration on FFHQ using FAST-DIPS with a differentiable surrogate operator. We display the measurement, reconstruction, and the ground-truth reference across three compression levels: JPEG Quality 5, 10, and 25.
Table 7
Figure 6: Phase Retrieval trajectory under fast-dips and Latent fast-dips with intermediate iterates along the diffusion schedule.
Figure 7: Additional qualitative results for Phase Retrieval . We show Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for both fast-dips and Latent fast-dips across four runs (Run 0–3).
Figure 8: Qualitative results for Phase Retrieval on ImageNet dataset. We show Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for both fast-dips and Latent fast-dips across four runs (Run 0–3).
Figure 9: Additional qualitative results for Super-Resolution × 4. Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference are shown for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 10: Qualitative results for Super-Resolution × 4 on ImageNet dataset. Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference are shown for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 11: Additional qualitative results for Inpaint(box) . We display Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 12: Qualitative results for Inpaint(box) on ImageNet dataset. We display Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 13: Additional qualitative results for Inpaint(random) . Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference with fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 14: Qualitative results for Inpaint(random) on ImageNet dataset. Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference with fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 15: Additional qualitative results for Gaussian deblurring . We show Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 16: Qualitative results for Gaussian deblurring on ImageNet dataset. We show Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 17: Additional qualitative results for Motion deblurring . Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference are provided for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 18: Qualitative results for Motion deblurring on ImageNet dataset. Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference are provided for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 19: Additional qualitative results for Nonlinear deblurring . We present Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 20: Qualitative results for Nonlinear deblurring on ImageNet dataset. We present Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 21: Additional qualitative results for High Dynamic Range . Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Figure 22: Qualitative results for High Dynamic Range on ImageNet dataset. Measurement, Reconstruction, and Reference for fast-dips and Latent fast-dips .
Pretrained diffusion models are effective priors for Bayesian inverse problems, but posterior sampling with these priors is often costly because data-consistency guidance is applied throughout the full reverse trajectory. Existing methods have shown that vector-Jacobian products through the denoiser can sometimes be avoided, yet they typically still rely on dense guidance through the full trajectory or expensive inner solves. We introduce Sparse Scheduled Diffusion Guidance for Inverse Problems (Spin), a solver that avoids starting posterior sampling from pure noise. Spin first samples from a posterior time-marginal at an intermediate timestep t∗, and then uses that state as a warm start for a guided reverse diffusion process. At guidance time, instead of enforcing the measurement constraint at every denoising step, Spin applies lightweight corrections only at scheduled timesteps where the denoiser can still clean up artifacts. The resulting procedure decouples prior refinement from data consistency: the prior supplies denoising, while lightweight pixel-space optimization enforces the measurement constraint without backpropagation through the denoiser or decoder. Across linear and nonlinear inverse problems on FFHQ and ImageNet, Spin achieves competitive reconstruction quality with a substantially better runtime--memory profile, running 2x faster on pixel-space models and up to 50x faster on latent diffusion models, with lower memory costs.
From a Bayesian perspective, score-based diffusion solves inverse problems through joint inference, embedding the likelihood with the prior to guide the sampling process. However, this formulation fails to explain its practical behavior: the prior offers limited guidance, while reconstruction is largely driven by the measurement-consistency term, leading to an inference process that is effectively decoupled from the diffusion dynamics. We show that the diffusion prior in these solvers functions primarily as a warm initializer that places estimates near the data manifold, while reconstruction is driven almost entirely by measurement consistency. Based on this observation, we introduce DAPS++, which fully decouples diffusion-based initialization from likelihood-driven refinement, allowing the likelihood term to guide inference more directly while maintaining numerical stability and providing insight into why unified diffusion trajectories remain effective in practice. By requiring fewer function evaluations (NFEs) and measurement-optimization steps, DAPS++ achieves high computational efficiency and robust reconstruction performance across diverse image restoration tasks.
Hao Chen, Renzheng Zhang, Scott S. Howard
University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
Training-free diffusion inverse solvers typically choose between local measurement guidance and costly clean-space posterior updates. Independent posterior refresh can improve global correction by sampling a clean conditional and re-noising it, but its practical realization requires probability-flow ODE integration and clean-space Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). We propose Direct Conditional Transition Sampling (DCTS), a direct stochastic-flow approximation to the same ideal refresh target. Rather than explicitly drawing a clean sample, DCTS estimates the measurement-conditioned clean mean along a short inner path and transports Gaussian source noise directly to the next noisy state. A denoiser-compatible sufficient statistic and a covariance-scaled operator update enable this conditional-mean estimation. Experiments on four inverse problems demonstrate that DCTS achieves competitive reconstruction quality with up to 16.8× speedups over competing methods.
Qi Yu, Hanlin Wu, Xiaohui Sun
School of Information Science and Technology, Beijing Foreign Studies University