Most existing graph diffusion models have significant bias problems. We observe that the forward diffusion's maximum perturbation distribution in most models deviates from the standard Gaussian distribution, while reverse sampling consistently starts from a standard Gaussian distribution, which results in a reverse-starting bias. Together with the inherent exposure bias of diffusion models, this results in degraded generation quality. This paper proposes a comprehensive approach to mitigate both biases. To mitigate reverse-starting bias, we employ a newly designed Langevin sampling algorithm to align with the forward maximum perturbation distribution, establishing a new reverse-starting point. To address the exposure bias, we introduce a score correction mechanism based on a newly defined score difference. Our approach, which requires no network modifications, is validated across multiple models, datasets, and tasks, achieving state-of-the-art results.Code is at https://github.com/kunzhan/spp
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) According to the diffusion equation, we write the perturbation distribution as q(xt∣x0)=N(xt∣utx0,σt2I) .The maximum perturbation distribution in the forward diffusing is N(xT∣uTx0,σT2I) , but the reverse-starting point always follows N(xT∣0,I) , leading to significant inconsistencies between forward diffusing and reverse sampling. In particular, we observe that xT of different baselines are in the low-noise state since their signal-to-noise ratios are always greater than one. More details are provided in Appendix A . (b) and (c) Expectation of ∥sθ,t(⋅)∥2 during sampling (without the corrector) and training on Community-small. Due to the reverse-starting bias, there is a significant difference between forward diffusing and reverse sampling in the early stages of sampling in (b). However, after applying our approach, not only is the reverse-starting bias mitigated, but the exposure bias during the sampling process is also significantly reduced.
Figure 2: (a) and (b) The ℓ2 norm of the predictions from the two score networks at different time steps. (c) The generation results of two score networks with perturbations at different time steps.
Figure 3: Score correction based on the score difference. At the reverse-sampling time t , the optimal score always points to X0 . sθ,t(⋅) points to γtX0 with some deviation (partially containing X0 ), while sψ,t(⋅) points to γt′X0 with larger deviation (containing little X0 ). The difference between predicted and pseudo scores guides the predicted score towards the optimal score. We use λ to control the angle and ω to adjust the magnitude of the corrected score. The final corrected score flexibly approaches the optimal score within the dashed box.
Dataset
Community-small
Enzymes
Grid
Info.
Synthetic, 12≤∣V∣≤20
Real, 10≤∣V∣≤125
Synthetic, 100≤∣V∣≤400
Method
Deg. ↓
Clus. ↓
Orbit ↓
Avg. ↓
Deg. ↓
Clus. ↓
Orbit ↓
Avg. ↓
Deg. ↓
Clus. ↓
Orbit ↓
Avg. ↓
GDSS-OC
0.050
0.132
0.011
0.064
0.052
0.627
0.249
0.309
0.270
0.009
0.034
0.070
GDSS-OC-S++
0.021
0.061
0.005
0.029
0.067
0.099
0.007
0.058
0.105
0.004
0.061
0.066
GDSS-WC
0.045
0.088
0.007
0.045
0.044
0.069
0.002
0.038
0.111
0.005
0.070
0.070
GDSS-WC-S++
0.019
0.062
0.004
0.028
0.031
0.050
0.003
0.028
0.105
0.004
0.061
0.057
Table 1: Generation results on the generic graph datasets (Lower is better). The results of the Enzymes dataset of GDSS are reproduced by ourselves, the results of other baselines are all from published papers, and we give detailed settings and instructions in Appendix D .
Method
QM9
ZINC250k
Sampling time ↓
NSPDK MMD ↓
FCD ↓
Sampling time ↓
NSPDK MMD ↓
FCD ↓
GDSS-OC
0.73e2
0.016
4.584
0.73e3
0.047
20.53
GDSS-OC-S++
5.10
0.001
1.661
0.70e3
0.050
16.79
GDSS-WC
1.61e2
0.004
2.550
1.41e3
0.019
14.66
GDSS-WC-S++
9.25
0.001
1.661
0.98e3
0.012
12.70
HGDM-OC
0.62e2
0.005
3.164
0.76e3
0.033
21.38
Table 2: Comparison of different methods on QM9 and ZINC250k datasets.
Method
Target protein
parp1
fa7
5ht1b
braf
jak2
MOOD
7.017 (± 0.428)
0.733 (± 0.141)
18.673 (± 0.423)
5.240 (± 0.285)
9.200 (± 0.524)
MOOD-S++
8.286 (± 0.214)
0.900 (± 0.068)
20.354 (± 0.672)
5.653 (± 0.073)
9.167 (± 0.067)
Table 3: Novel hit ratio (%) results ( ↑ ).
N
Method
QM9
Community-small
Val. w/o corr. ↑
NSPDK MMD ↓
FCD ↓
Deg. ↓
Clus. ↓
Orbit ↓
Avg. ↓
1000
GDSS-OC
73.5
0.015
4.584
0.050
0.132
0.011
0.064
GDSS-OCS++
94.0
0.001
1.671
0.021
0.061
0.005
0.029
500
GDSS-OC
46.2
0.045
7.960
0.136
0.456
0.151
0.248
GDSS-OC-S++
93.9
0.001
1.665
0.029
0.142
0.008
0.060
100
GDSS-OC
37.8
0.069
9.951
0.092
0.666
0.394
0.384
Table 5: Comparison of different methods under different total sampling time steps.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
GDSS
Dataset
Community-small
Enzymes
Grid
QM9
ZINC250k
Type
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
SDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VESDE
βmin∣σmin
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
βmax∣σmax
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
uT
0.7596
0.7596
0.7596
1.0
0.7596
0.7788
1.0
1.0
0.7596
1.0
Appendix
Table 7: The actual parameters of the forward perturbation of GDSS.
Model
HGDM
Dataset
Community-small
Enzymes
Grid
QM9
ZINC250k
Type
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
SDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VESDE
βmin∣σmin
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
βmax∣σmax
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7.0
0.8
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
uT
0.7596
0.7596
0.7596
1.0
0.1695
1.0
0.5916
1.0
0.7596
1.0
Appendix
Table 8: The actual parameters of the forward perturbation of HGDM.
Model
GSDM
MOOD
Dataset
Community-small
Enzymes
Grid
QM9
ZINC250k
Type
Node
Eigen
Node
Eigen
Node
Eigen
Node
Edge
Node
Edge
SDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VPSDE
VESDE
VPSDE
VESDE
βmin∣σmin
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
βmax∣σmax
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
uT
0.7596
0.7596
0.7596
0.7596
0.7596
0.7788
1.0
1.0
0.7596
1.0
Appendix
Table 9: The actual parameters of the forward perturbation of GSDM and MOOD.
Figure 4: Generation metric responses to perturbations at different time steps for two score networks.
Model
Hyper.
Comm.
Enzymes
Grid
QM9
ZINC250k
M
400
420
350
400
400
λ1
0.2
0.0008
0.06
1.19
2.5
GDSS-OC-S++
ω1
0.998
1.0
1.0
1.09
1.0
λ2
0
0
0
0
0
ω2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
M
280
310
280
240
220
Appendix
Table 10: Experimental parameters for sampling methods without a corrector (OC).
Model
Hyper.
Comm.
Enzymes
Grid
QM9
ZINC250k
M
400
420
350
400
400
λ1
0.2
0.0008
0.06
1.19
2.5
GDSS-WC-S++
ω1
0.998
1.0
1.0
1.09
1.0
tc
0.2
0.45
0.055
0.1
0.4
λ2
0
0
0
0
0
ω2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Appendix
Table 11: Experimental parameters for sampling methods with a corrector (WC).
Dataset
Community-small
Enzymes
Grid
Info.
Synthetic, 12≤∣V∣≤20
Real, 10≤∣V∣≤125
Synthetic, 100≤∣V∣≤400
Method
Deg.
Clus.
Orbit
Avg.
Deg.
Clus.
Orbit
Avg.
Deg.
Clus.
Orbit
Avg.
DeepGMG
0.220
0.950
0.400
0.523
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
GraphRNN
0.080
0.120
0.040
0.080
0.017
0.062
0.046
0.042
0.064
0.043
0.021
0.043
GraphAF
0.18
0.20
0.02
0.133
1.669
1.283
0.266
1.073
-
-
-
-
GraphDF
0.06
0.12
0.03
0.070
1.503
1.061
0.202
0.922
-
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 12: Additional experiments on generic graph datasets.
Method
QM9
ZINC250k
Val. w/o corr. (%) ↑
NSPDK MMD ↓
FCD ↓
Val. w/o corr. (%) ↑
NSPDK MMD ↓
FCD ↓
GraphAF
67.00
0.020
5.268
68.00
0.044
16.289
GraphDF
82.67
0.063
10.816
89.03
0.176
34.202
MoFlow
91.36
0.017
4.467
63.11
0.046
20.931
EDP-GNN
47.52
0.005
2.680
82.97
0.049
16.737
GraphEBM
8.22
0.030
6.143
5.29
0.212
35.471
Appendix
Table 13: Additional experiments on QM9 and ZINC250k datasets.
Graph diffusion models have gained significant attention in graph generation tasks, but they often inherit and amplify topology biases from sensitive attributes (e.g. gender, age, region), leading to unfair synthetic graphs. Existing fair graph generation using diffusion models is limited to specific graph-based applications with complete labels or requires simultaneous updates for graph structure and node attributes, making them unsuitable for general usage. To relax these limitations by applying the debiasing method directly on graph topology, we propose Fair Graph Diffusion Model (FairGDiff), a counterfactual-based one-step solution that mitigates topology biases while balancing fairness and utility. In detail, we construct a causal model to capture the relationship between sensitive attributes, biased link formation, and the generated graph structure. By answering the counterfactual question "Would the graph structure change if the sensitive attribute were different?", we estimate an unbiased treatment and incorporate it into the diffusion process. FairGDiff integrates counterfactual learning into both forward diffusion and backward denoising, ensuring that the generated graphs are independent of sensitive attributes while preserving structural integrity. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that FairGDiff achieves a superior trade-off between fairness and utility, outperforming existing fair graph generation methods while maintaining scalability.
Text-to-Image diffusion models often propagate harmful bias inherited from the training data. Existing bias mitigation techniques typically intervene only at the text encoder or provide inference-time guidance, often leading to generations that collapse into semantically incoherent outputs. To address these limitations, we introduce CO-ALIGN (Concept Ontology Alignment), a novel bias mitigation approach based on concept-graph alignment that operates on the model's internal concept ontology. By aligning concepts within the text encoder and denoiser, CO-ALIGN achieves substantial bias reduction while preserving generative integrity. We demonstrate the effectiveness of concept-graph alignment across three paradigms: text-encoders, denoisers and joint text-denoiser ontology alignment. CO-ALIGN outperforms the state of the art, improving fairness by 30%, ΔFID=11.4 in image quality, 2.8% in image fidelity, all while reducing semantically incoherent outputs by 88%. Beyond bias mitigation, we show that CO-ALIGN benefits other downstream tasks as well. In particular, our experiments demonstrate that better-aligned internal ontologies enhance concept unlearning robustness across multiple unlearning techniques.
Sampling from score-based diffusion models incurs bias due to both time discretisation and the approximation of the score function. A common strategy for reducing this bias is to apply corrector steps based on the unadjusted Langevin algorithm (ULA) at each noise level within a predictor-corrector framework. However, ULA is itself a biased sampler, as it discretises a continuous diffusion process. In this work, we consider adjusted Langevin correctors that employ Metropolis--Hastings (MH) or Barker's accept-reject steps to correct for this bias. Since the target density ratio typically required by MH-based algorithms is unavailable, we propose methods that instead utilise the score function to compute the correct acceptance probability. We introduce the first exact method for adjusting Langevin corrections in diffusion models, based on a two-coin Bernoulli factory algorithm. We also propose an efficient approximation based on Simpson's rule that achieves accuracy of order 5/2 in the step size at near-zero marginal cost. We demonstrate that these procedures improve sample quality on both synthetic and image datasets, yielding consistent gains in Fréchet Inception Distance (FID) on the latter.
Kevin H. Lam, Tyler Farghly, Christopher Williams +3
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford · Inria, CNRS, École Normale Supérieure, PSL Research University · Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen