VASR: Variance-Aware Systematic Resampling for Reward-Guided Diffusion
Authors: Shivanshu Shekhar, Sagnik Mukherjee, Jia Yi Zhang, Tong Zhang
Organizations: Siebel School of Computing and Data Science University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Department of Statistics University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) samplers for reward-guided diffusion models often suffer from rapid lineage collapse: a few high-reward particles dominate the population within a handful of resampling steps, destroying diversity and degrading sample quality. We propose a variance-decomposition framework for reward-guided diffusion SMC that separates continuation variance Vtcont from residual variance Vtres, revealing that high offspring-count variance under the commonly used multinomial resampling drives this collapse. This motivates VASR (Variance-Aware Systematic Resampling), which addresses both variance terms via variance-optimal mass allocation mt∝wtert (minimizing Vtcont) and systematic resampling (controlling Vtres). For latent diffusion models where intermediate rewards are noisy due to stochastic continuations, we propose VASR-Max, a deliberately biased high-selection variant for variance-sensitive reward optimization. Both methods are training-free, fully parallelizable, and add only linear overhead. On MNIST and CIFAR-10, VASR achieves as high as 26% better FID than prior SMC methods while remaining 66 times faster than MCTS-based value methods at matched compute. On text-to-image generation, VASR-Max consistently outperforms the strongest SMC baseline across compute budgets and matches MCTS-based methods within 2.5--3% reward at high budgets while being approximately times faster.
Figures & tables
MNIST
MNIST even/odd
CIFAR-10
Algorithm
FID ↓
MMD ↓
logr↑
Div ↑
FID ↓
MMD ↓
logr↑
Div ↑
FID ↓
MMD ↓
logr↑
Div ↑
DPS
1.008 (4.173)
0.360 (0.236)
-0.167 (0.125)
0.487 (0.054)
1.471 (2.059)
0.449 (0.144)
-0.186 (0.059)
0.491 (0.007)
0.256 (0.060)
1.297 (0.504)
-0.273 (0.110)
0.531 (0.019)
FKD
0.037 (0.023)
0.163 (0.130)
-0.026 (0.013)
0.457 (0.050)
0.056 (0.022)
0.241 (0.112)
-0.032 (0.013)
0.456 (0.007)
0.241 (0.054)
0.923 (0.294)
-0.181 (0.158)
0.517 (0.025)
TDS
0.101 (0.057)
0.485 (0.390)
-0.013 (0.030)
0.429 (0.053)
0.143 (0.066)
0.785 (0.430)
-0.018 (0.032)
0.430 (0.010)
0.418 (0.175)
2.100 (1.221)
-0.043 (0.035)
0.486 (0.036)
DAS
0.030 (0.015)
0.120 (0.076)
-0.023 (0.012)
0.456 (0.052)
0.037 (0.010)
0.159 (0.072)
-0.027 (0.009)
0.457 (0.010)
0.205 (0.043)
0.738 (0.199)
-0.537 (0.236)
0.532 (0.021)
DTS
0.019 (0.002)
0.100 (0.016)
-0.020 (0.001)
0.494 (0.003)
0.014 (0.004)
0.075 (0.029)
-0.015 (0.004)
0.616 (0.053)
0.180 (0.036)
0.744 (0.183)
-0.301 (0.098)
0.540 (0.019)
Table 1: Quantitative comparison on MNIST and CIFAR-10. We report mean ± standard deviation over 5 seeds after 106 NFEs. Metrics include FID, MMD, expected reward, and diversity (Div). Best values per column are underlined , and values within 5% of the best are highlighted. VASR consistently achieves the best or near-best performance across all settings.
Figure 1: Scaling behavior with increasing compute (NFEs). FID vs NFEs on CIFAR-10 and MNIST. VASR outperforms FKD and DTS across all compute budgets, demonstrating favorable scaling with full parallelism.
Figure 2: Reward scaling with compute in text-to-image generation. (Left) Aesthetic score on the simple animals benchmark; (right) ImageReward on DrawBench. Methods are evaluated under matched NFE budgets. VASR-Max achieves competitive rewards while avoiding over-optimization and maintaining better efficiency than DTS.
Figure 3: Vtcont under different mass allocations. The variance-optimal allocation m∝w⋅er maintains substantially lower Vtcont than the baseline m∝er on CIFAR-10 ( K=1000 ), yielding nearly 2× better terminal MMD.
Figure 4: Temperature λ ablation. Higher λ reduces lineage diversity and degrades FID, approximately matching multinomial’s performance at λ=4.0 .
Figure 5: Systematic vs. Multinomial resampling. Left: Offspring-count variance. Systematic maintains low variance while multinomial exhibits large fluctuations. Right: Lineage diversity. Systematic retains more distinct lineages, avoiding multinomial’s rapid collapse.
Figure 6: FID vs. time on CIFAR-10. VASR achieves lower FID at all budgets and is ∼66× faster than DTS at matched NFEs; DTS fails to match even the worst VASR FID.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on aesthetic optimization. Samples from each method for a 100K NFE budget. As emphasized earlier, FKD achieves a high aesthetic score but produces samples that have overfit to the reward model and do not make sense [ 38 ] , a symptom of over-fitting. VASR-Max generates visually appealing images that remain faithful to the prompt.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison on DrawBench (ImageReward). Best samples generated by each method for each prompt at a 100K NFE budget. VASR-Max produces samples with higher prompt alignment and perceptual quality compared to DTS and FKD, consistent with the quantitative results in Figure 2 .
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on CIFAR-10 (class: car). Samples generated with 106 NFEs, selected via reward-weighted sampling. FKD and TDS exhibit mode collapse with visually similar outputs, while DPS produces out-of-distribution images. VASR and DTS maintain distribution alignment with higher sample diversity.
Figure 10: Per-particle reward variance vs. mean reward (prompt: “A brown colored giraffe.”). Each point is a particle, with the dashed line showing mean variance. Despite variation in mean rewards, within-particle variance remains nearly constant ( 0.02 – 0.04 ), independent of reward rank.
Figure 11: Effect of ordering heuristic on offspring variance. Ordering particles before systematic resampling reduces offspring-count variance at each step and improves terminal FID.
Diffusion model sampling studies how to generate high-quality samples efficiently by designing reverse processes, solvers, and inference-time controls.
Reward-guided discrete diffusion enables test-time alignment with downstream objectives, but applying Sequential Monte Carlo (SMC) guidance at every denoising step is computationally expensive. Active guidance steps require additional reward evaluations and, for gradient-based proposals, value-gradient computations. Sparse guidance reduces this cost by guiding only a subset of timesteps, but commonly used schedules are fixed heuristics whose effectiveness can vary substantially across tasks. We propose VISTA, a training-free method that automatically selects guided timesteps under a fixed budget. VISTA formulates sparse guidance as approximation of the ideal full-guidance probability path and derives an estimable upper bound on ℓ1 path deviation. Using value statistics collected from a small number of full-guidance warmup generations, VISTA optimizes the resulting empirical surrogate exactly via dynamic programming. The warmup generations can be retained as model outputs, and after schedule selection VISTA has the same per-generation guidance complexity as other sparse schedules with the same budget. Across text, biological sequence, and image generation tasks, VISTA discovers task-dependent schedules and outperforms hand-designed sparse schedules in most tested settings, while approaching or exceeding full-guidance performance on several task metrics. In toxic-text generation, for example, VISTA attains a 0.99 unique-toxic ratio compared with 1.00 for full guidance while reducing post-selection per-generation latency from 204.23 s to 38.16 s, a 5.35× speedup.
Masked discrete diffusion models perform strongly on text, code, and biological sequences, but their training objective rewards only naturalness, and retraining the generator for every new reward is expensive. Inference-time steering of a frozen model either guides the sampler by the reward gradient or searches over several trajectories, and recent samplers combine the two. Such combinations are assembled as pipelines that leave three choices at their defaults: a guidance estimate resting on one Gumbel draw per sample, a reward tilting placed without reference to the distribution the combination then targets, and a selection temperature held fixed although the spread of per-step rewards drifts. We identify that distribution and settle the three choices against it. We therefore propose Variance-reduced Guidance and Adaptive Selection (VGAS), a simple yet effective inference-time framework that reduces the variance of the guidance estimate for both reward types, applies the reward tilting in the clean-token logits, where the pretrained schedule is preserved, and sets the selection temperature per step. Across regulatory DNA, protein and small-molecule benchmarks, VGAS attains the best training-free reward and matches or surpasses a reward-fine-tuned generator.
Adapting pretrained diffusion models to downstream objectives such as inverse problems often requires expensive test-time guidance or optimization. We propose a principled framework for generating high-quality reward-aligned samples at substantially reduced inference cost. Our approach formulates test-time adaptation as a hierarchical variational model, where control is amortized into a lightweight yet expressive stochastic policy. This formulation naturally supports few-step diffusion sampling: large step sizes enable fast inference, while the learned policy maintains sample quality by providing structured per-step control. The resulting fully amortized sampler achieves a strong quality--speed tradeoff, matching or exceeding recent test-time scaling baselines while requiring significantly less compute. For example, on 4x super-resolution, our method achieves better perceptual quality with more than 5x faster inference compared to the best-performing baseline. We further extend our approach to a semi-amortized regime that combines cheap amortized proposals with limited test-time optimization, achieving state-of-the-art perceptual quality across several challenging inverse problems.
Kushagra Pandey, Farrin Marouf Sofian, Jan Niklas Groeneveld +2
Department of Computer Science University of California Irvine