Flow-GRPO successfully applies reinforcement learning to flow models, but uses uniform credit assignment across all steps. This ignores the temporal structure of diffusion generation: early steps determine composition and content (low-frequency structure), while late steps resolve details and textures (high-frequency details). Moreover, assigning uniform credit based solely on the final image can inadvertently reward suboptimal intermediate steps, especially when errors are corrected later in the diffusion trajectory. We propose Stepwise-Flow-GRPO, which assigns credit based on each step's reward improvement. By leveraging Tweedie's formula to obtain intermediate reward estimates and introducing gain-based advantages, our method achieves superior sample efficiency and faster convergence. We also introduce a DDIM-inspired SDE that improves reward quality while preserving stochasticity for policy gradients.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Gain magnitudes across steps. Mean absolute gain \Ei[∣gti∣] measured on 256 GenEval prompts using PickScore. Early steps show larger gains, indicating that compositional decisions drive most reward improvement.
Algorithm 1 Stepwise-Flow-GRPO
Figure 3: Qualitative results . We compare our Stepwise-Flow-GRPO with Flow-GRPO and observe better spatial reasoning, attribute binding, and counting performance.
Figure 4: Sample efficiency across reward functions. Stepwise-Flow-GRPO consistently outperforms Flow-GRPO in reward per training step across all settings, achieving both faster convergence and superior final performance in 3 out of 4 settings.
Figure 5: Wall-clock efficiency matches sample efficiency gains. Reward versus wall-clock time for the same settings as Fig. 4 . Despite additional computational cost for intermediate denoising, Stepwise-Flow-GRPO converges faster in wall-clock time, achieving visibly superior performance in 3 out of 4 settings.
Figure 6: Stepwise credit assignment remains effective with improved SDE. Reward versus training step when both methods use the DDIM-inspired SDE from Sec. 5.5 . Stepwise-Flow-GRPO retains its sample efficiency advantage, demonstrating that the improvements in credit assignment and sampling are complementary.
Experiment
Overall
Single Obj.
Two Objs.
Counting
Colors
Position
Attr. Binding
Pretrained Models
SD3.5-M (cfg=1.0)
0.28
0.71
0.23
0.15
0.45
0.05
0.08
SD3.5-M (cfg=4.5)
0.63
0.98
0.78
0.50
0.81
0.24
0.52
Fine-tuned Models
SD3.5-M+Flow-GRPO (cfg=1.0 PickScore)
0.60
0.96
0.73
0.67
0.67
0.21
0.35
SD3.5-M+Ours (cfg=1.0 PickScore)
0.60
0.96
0.75
0.67
0.67
0.21
0.34
Table 1: Final model quality on GenEval. Compositional generation performance for models trained with PickScore reward. Both methods substantially improve over the base model, with our method matching Flow-GRPO at cfg=1.0 and outperforming it across most categories at cfg=4.5, particularly in counting and spatial positioning.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Design variation comparison. Reward vs. training iteration for different formulations of stepwise credit assignment on GenEval with PickScore reward. The standard gain formulation from the main paper matches all alternatives, demonstrating that preserving the natural temporal structure of diffusion gains is the most effective credit assignment.
Figure 8: Improved SDE produces cleaner images. Qualitative comparison between Flow-GRPO SDE (middle) and our DDIM-inspired SDE (right) from Sec. 5.5 . The improved formulation generates images that are much less noisy while maintaining stochasticity for policy gradients.
Figure 9: Joint normalization preserves temporal structure and accelerates convergence. Reward vs. training iteration comparing joint normalization (global mean/std across all steps and trajectories) against per-step normalization (separate mean/std for each step).
Figure 10: Stepwise-Flow-GRPO is robust to the number of denoising substeps. Reward vs. training iteration (top) and GPU Hours (bottom) for different numbers of substeps T′∈{2,5,8} used to compute x^0(t) . All settings achieve similar convergence speed and final performance, validating that our method is not sensitive to this hyperparameter choice.
Method (Reward)
Generation (s)
Reward eval (s)
Ours (PickScore)
24.4 ± 0.0
2.8 ± 0.0
Flow-GRPO (PickScore)
13.7 ± 0.9
1.4 ± 1.3
Ours (ImageReward)
29.8 ± 0.2
8.2 ± 0.2
Flow-GRPO (ImageReward)
7.9 ± 0.0
0.7 ± 0.0
Ours (UnifiedReward)
136.1 ± 5.8
114.6 ± 5.8
Flow-GRPO (UnifiedReward)
56.0 ± 30.9
48.8 ± 30.9
Appendix
Table 2: Per-iteration timing breakdown in seconds per training iteration, averaged over multiple runs.
Figure 11: OCR text rendering results. Reward vs. training iteration (top) and wall-clock time (bottom) using combined OCR+PickScore reward (80% OCR, 20% PickScore). Flow-GRPO diverges after 500 steps while Stepwise-Flow-GRPO continues improving, demonstrating superior stability and final performance on compositional text rendering.
Figure 12: Extended GenEval training. GenEval overall score vs. wall-clock time for 400 GPU hour runs. Stepwise-Flow-GRPO achieves 0.87, substantially outperforming Flow-GRPO (0.72) and approaching state-of-the-art autoregressive models. The widening performance gap demonstrates that stepwise credit assignment provides increasing benefits at high performance levels.
Figure 13: UnifiedReward training. Reward vs. wall-clock time for 60 GPU hour run on GenEval using UnifiedReward-7b-v1.5. Stepwise-Flow-GRPO trains stably while Flow-GRPO diverges with this reward function, demonstrating superior robustness with complex VLM-based rewards.
Model
Overall
Single Obj.
Two Objs.
Counting
Colors
Position
Attr. Binding
Pretrained Models
SD3.5-M (cfg=1.0)
0.28
0.71
0.23
0.15
0.45
0.05
0.08
SD3.5-M (cfg=4.5)
0.63
0.98
0.78
0.50
0.81
0.24
0.52
Standard Training Duration
Flow-GRPO (cfg=1.0, PickScore)
0.60
0.96
0.73
0.67
0.67
0.21
0.35
Ours (cfg=1.0, PickScore)
0.60
0.96
0.75
0.67
0.67
0.21
0.34
Appendix
Table 3: Complete GenEval results. After 400 GPU hours, our method achieves 0.87 overall, substantially outperforming Flow-GRPO (0.72) and approaching GPT-4o (0.84). Flow-GRPO extended results from [ 26 ] ; reference models from respective papers.
Figure 14: Qualitative comparison across training objectives. Generated images from GenEval prompts using base SD3.5-M (left), GenEval reward training (middle), and UnifiedReward training (right). While GenEval reward training improves prompt adherence and benchmark scores, UnifiedReward training produces higher overall visual quality and more photorealistic images.
Figure 15: Extended qualitative comparison (page 1). Each row shows a single prompt with the base model generation (step 0), followed by Flow-GRPO and Stepwise-Flow-GRPO (Ours) at training steps 60 and 120, both trained with PickScore reward. The gap is most visible at step 60, where our method demonstrates better counting, more plausible compositions, and higher image quality.
Figure 16: Extended qualitative comparison (page 2). Same layout as Fig. 15 . Stepwise-Flow-GRPO consistently produces more accurate object counts, better spatial arrangements, and higher overall quality than Flow-GRPO across training.
Figure 17: Extended qualitative comparison (page 3). Same layout as Fig. 15 . Our method maintains qualitative advantages throughout training, with the largest visible differences at step 60.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has proven effective in aligning flow-based generative models with human preferences. Recently, Flow-GRPO has emerged as an efficient critic-free paradigm by calculating advantages over sampled candidate trajectories. However, standard Flow-GRPO applies a uniform scalar advantage across both temporal denoising steps and spatial latent dimensions, without explicitly accounting for the spatial structure of generated images, which may lead to sub-optimal policy updates. To address this, we propose a novel gradient-guided spatial credit assignment framework tailored for Diffusion Transformers (DiTs). We first reformulate the transition-level log-likelihood in Flow-GRPO into a token-wise representation natively aligned with DiT patch architectures, constructing spatially fine-grained importance sampling ratios. To allocate localized credit without rigid, boundary-sensitive segmentation heuristics, we introduce a continuous spatial credit map derived from reward gradients. Crucially, we employ an outlier-robust normalization scheme based on Median Absolute Deviation (MAD) coupled with temperature scaling, effectively eliminating gradient noise while highlighting functional prompt-aligned regions. Extensive evaluations on GenEval show that our approach delivers SOTA alignment quality, achieving a convergence rate comparable to top-tier methods like DiffusionNFT while substantially improving upon Flow-GRPO-based methods in alignment performance.
Yunkai Yang, Yudong Zhang, Xinying Chen +5
Sun Yat-Sen University · Baidu · Beijing Institute of Technology +2
Deploying GRPO on Flow Matching models has proven effective for text-to-image generation. However, existing paradigms typically propagate an outcome-based reward to all preceding denoising steps without distinguishing the local effect of each step. Moreover, current group-wise ranking mainly compares trajectories at matched timesteps and ignores within-trajectory dependencies, where certain early denoising actions can affect later states via delayed, implicit interactions. We propose TurningPoint-GRPO (TP-GRPO), a GRPO framework that alleviates step-wise reward sparsity and explicitly models long-term effects within the denoising trajectory. TP-GRPO makes two key innovations: (i) it replaces outcome-based rewards with step-level incremental rewards, providing a dense, step-aware learning signal that better isolates each denoising action's "pure" effect, and (ii) it identifies turning points-steps that flip the local reward trend and make subsequent reward evolution consistent with the overall trajectory trend-and assigns these actions an aggregated long-term reward to capture their delayed impact. Turning points are detected solely via sign changes in incremental rewards, making TP-GRPO efficient and hyperparameter-free. Extensive experiments also demonstrate that TP-GRPO exploits reward signals more effectively and consistently improves generation. Demo code is available at https://github.com/YunzeTong/TurningPoint-GRPO.
Yunze Tong, Mushui Liu, Canyu Zhao +7
1Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · 2Taobao & Tmall Group of Alibaba, Hangzhou, China · 3Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Reinforcement learning is increasingly used to align image generators with reward signals, and Flow-GRPO recently extended this paradigm to flow-matching models by treating the denoising sampler as a stochastic policy that can be optimized from reward feedback. Training in this setting is unstable in a way specific to multi-step denoising: the policy update changes systematically across denoising steps, with importance ratios drifting below one, becoming increasingly dispersed, clipping at different rates, and leaving fewer usable samples late in training. Prior work treats these effects as separate failure modes and addresses each with a hand-tuned stabilizer. We show instead that they arise from a single per-step quantity, which we call path variance. This quantity is determined exactly by the sampler's Gaussian transition kernel and can be estimated cheaply during training. This reframes instability as a resource that can be measured and budgeted rather than a collection of symptoms to repair. Our method, λ-Controlled GRPO, calibrates importance-ratio behavior from this predicted law rather than from noisy empirical statistics, and allocates gradient effort across denoising steps according to their predicted cost. The two scales governing the update are fixed by standard policy choices rather than introduced as free tuning parameters. On a text-to-image model under two reward settings, rendering difficult target text scored by optical character recognition and matching human preferences scored by a preference model, λ-Controlled GRPO improves both text accuracy and preference reward over the strongest empirical stabilizer. It also keeps late-step path variance within its intended budget, precisely where the baseline systematically overshoots. The result is a Flow-GRPO update calibrated by its own transition law rather than stabilized after instability appears.
Yufeng Wang, Parivesh Priye, Meeshawn Marathe +1
Stony Brook University · Georgia Institute of Technology · Rivian and Volkswagen Group Technologies