Diffusion Transformer (DiT) faces challenges when generating images with higher resolution compared at training resolution, causing especially structural degradation due to attention dilution. Previous approaches attempt to mitigate this by sharpening attention distributions, but fail to preserve fine-grained semantic details and introduce obvious artifacts. In this work, we analyze the characteristics of DiTs and propose TIDE, a training-free text-to-image (T2I) extrapolation method that enables generation with arbitrary resolution and aspect ratio without additional sampling overhead. We identify the core factor for prompt information loss, and introduce a text anchoring mechanism to correct the imbalance between text and image tokens. To further eliminate artifacts, we design a dynamic temperature control mechanism that leverages the pattern of spectral progression in the diffusion process. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that TIDE delivers high-quality resolution extrapolation capability and integrates seamlessly with existing state-of-the-art methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Collage of multi-resolution results generated by TIDE. Prompts are from DrawBench and Aesthetic-4K. Zoom in for details.
Figure 2: Overview of our proposed TIDE framework. (a) Visual comparison at 4096×4096 resolution. While existing methods (left) suffer from information loss and repetitive artifacts, our approach (right) preserves prompt fidelity and generates realistic details. (b) Dynamic Temperature Control method, which dynamically adjusts the attention temperature across time-steps to eliminate high-frequency artifacts. (c) Text Anchoring mechanism, which counteracts attention dilution by reinforcing the cross-attention scores between image queries and text keys, recovering the influence of text tokens.
Figure 3: Visual comparison of subject vanishing issues at 4K resolution. We compare four extrapolation baselines at 4096×4096 with the native resolution 1024×1024 . While the model at native resolution produces coherent subjects, baseline methods except YaRN suffer from severe subject vanishing issue, and YaRN’s content richness has also noticeably declined.
Figure 4: Visualization of text token influence decay. We visualize the spatial influence of text prompts at the early sampling stage, revealing that text guidance influence diminishes as the target resolution scales to 4096×4096 . Specifically, Direct Extrapolation, NTK-Aware Interpolation and NTK-by-Parts Interpolation exhibit a near-total loss of spatial influence, providing a mechanistic explanation for the subject vanishing issue. YaRN only partially recovers token influence in the central region, resulting in suboptimal generation quality.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison with baseline method. We compare TIDE against baseline methods. The input prompts correspond to the rows: 2K Prompt 1: “ A Moai statue gazes upward against a starry night sky, with a colorful sunset illuminating the horizon. ”; 2K Prompt 2: “ New York Skyline with ’Diffusion’ written with fireworks on the sky. ”; 4K Prompt 1: “ A futuristic spaceship flies over a lush landscape featuring rocky cliffs and a settlement with domed buildings near a serene body of water surrounded by greenery. ”; 4K Prompt 2: “ Narrow cobblestone alley featuring colorful buildings with green and orange facades, potted plants lining the street, and a puddle reflecting the scene. ”.
Resolution
Method
DrawBench
Aesthetic-4K
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
FID ↓
KID ↓
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
2048×2048
FLUX
26.63
0.46
5.53
162.59
0.0087
27.87
1.02
6.54
YaRN
26.76
0.66
5.76
141.93
0.0045
28.07
1.14
6.59
Dy-YaRN
26.52
0.72
5.74
161.32
0.0068
28.09
1.10
6.62
TIDE (Ours)
27.34
0.83
5.77
159.35
0.0066
28.60
1.21
6.68
4096×4096
FLUX
15.16
-2.19
2.92
341.79
0.1952
13.46
-2.25
2.58
Table 1: Quantitative comparison with baselines. We compare our TIDE with FLUX, YaRN, and Dy-YaRN on DrawBench and Aesthetic-4K. All methods are built on FLUX. Best results are bolded .
Method
TIDE (Ours)
Dy-YaRN
Text Alignment
4.57
3.60
Global Structure
4.33
3.21
Texture Quality
4.46
2.48
Table 2: User study results. We conduct a subjective evaluation comparing TIDE and Dy-YaRN on 20 randomly selected prompts. Participants rated images on a scale of 1 to 5 (higher is better). We report the mean score for each aspect.
Configurations
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
Baseline
23.60
-0.44
5.64
TA Only
26.60
0.66
6.54
DTC Only
23.28
-0.30
5.65
Full Method
26.76
0.86
6.46
Table 3: Component-wise ablation study. We investigate the impact of Text Anchoring and Dynamic Temperature Control on Asethetic-4K. The baseline model is Dy-YaRN. Best results are bolded .
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: Scale-adaptive bias. Our adaptive bias increases logarithmically with the extrapolation scale.
Method
Bias Scale
2048 × 2048
3072 × 3072
4096 × 4096
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
Dy-YaRN
-
29.10
1.12
6.83
26.87
0.69
6.56
23.60
-0.44
5.64
TIDE (Ours)
1.0
29.16
1.15
6.86
27.81
0.94
6.78
26.05
0.54
6.26
2.0
28.87
1.19
6.80
28.08
1.08
6.76
26.91
0.83
6.47
3.0
28.42
1.07
6.84
28.14
1.03
6.77
27.25
0.71
6.41
Adaptive
29.12
1.17
6.85
28.28
1.09
6.78
26.76
0.86
6.46
Appendix
Table 4: Ablation study on Text Anchoring bias across different resolutions. We evaluate the impact of bias strategies on image generation quality at 20482 , 30722 , and 40962 resolutions. Dy-YaRN is adopted as the baseline. The best results for each resolution are bolded , and the second-best results are underlined .
Figure 7: Temperature evolution patterns with different α . (a) demonstrates different patterns for component with lowest frequency of positional embeddings. (b) demonstrates different patterns for component with highest frequency of positional embeddings.
Method
αlow
αhigh
CLIP ↑
IR ↑
Aesth ↑
Dy-YaRN
-
-
23.60
-0.44
5.64
TIDE
0.0
0.0
26.60
0.66
6.54
0.6
0.1
27.25
0.84
6.49
0.2
26.76
0.86
6.46
0.5
27.09
0.84
6.52
1.0
26.03
0.53
6.19
Appendix
Table 5: Hyperparameter sensitivity of Dynamic Temperature Control. We evaluate the impact of low-frequency ( αlow ) and high-frequency ( αhigh ) exponents. Dy-YaRN serves as the baseline. The overall best results are bolded .
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison at different αlow and αhigh . The image on the left (with αlow=0.0 and αhigh=0.0 ) suffers from severe artifacts, while the image on the right shows blurry details. The image in the middle has the best quality.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison for high-resolution text-to-image generation on DrawBench. Our method outperforms baselines across by delivering high visual quality.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison for high-resolution text-to-image generation on Aesthetic-4K. Our method outperforms baselines across by delivering high visual quality.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of panoramic generation at 4096×1536 resolution.
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of panoramic generation at 4096×1536 resolution.