Diffusion models offer a natural way to model uncertainty in time series forecasting, yet their iterative sampling process is often treated as a uniformly beneficial refinement procedure. Our study challenges this view by examining how forecast quality evolves throughout reverse diffusion. We find that general temporal structure is often recovered at relatively high noise levels, whereas continued low-noise refinement can introduce statistical drift and degrade the final forecast. Our analysis further suggests that this behavior explains why prior methods often favor relatively narrow diffusion architecture and schedule design. Building on this observation, we propose a label-free global stopping criterion that detects the optimal termination point, eventually speeding up inference and improving predictive accuracy. Additionally, since early stopping terminates inference in high-noise regions, we propose a Bernoulli timestep sampler that concentrates training on this region while preserving coverage of the full diffusion process. Extensive experiments conducted across eight real-world datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our method compared to existing approaches.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Performance is consistent across different numbers of sampling steps, even better with smaller steps. (b) During generation, the intermediate predicted samples drift significantly when the noise levels are small.
Figure 2: Comparison of Different Schedules. (a) Signal scale decay αˉt over timesteps t with stability transition points. (b) Per-timestep loss curves showing convergence into the stable loss regime. (c) Candidate trajectory mean squared errors across varying noise levels.
Figure 3: Framework Overview. Breakpoint Estimation: Prediction trajectory of each sample xi is summarized into s[xi] , where piecewise-linear fitting detects the optimal transition breakpoint tδ∗ . Bernoulli Sampler: Training timesteps are adaptively sampled with probability p focused on the high-noise region while retaining full trajectory coverage. (c) Early-Stopped Accelerated Inference: Reverse diffusion terminates early at tδ , preventing error propagation and reducing compute costs.
Model
Ours
iTransformer
PatchTST
DLinear
TimesNet
TiDE
TimeMixer
CNDiff
TimeXer
Dataset
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
ETTh1
0.426
0.426
0.459
0.456
0.499
0.481
0.437
0.443
0.534
0.502
0.444
0.441
0.444
0.441
0.454
0.461
0.456
0.451
ETTh2
0.359
0.384
0.404
0.423
0.380
0.414
0.486
0.477
0.425
0.439
0.375
0.406
0.372
0.409
0.383
0.420
0.380
0.409
ETTm1
0.358
0.368
0.374
0.396
0.363
0.390
0.368
0.385
0.531
0.487
0.372
0.384
0.365
0.389
0.488
0.452
0.363
0.389
ETTm2
0.264
0.309
0.289
0.336
0.277
0.326
0.310
0.366
0.310
0.346
0.273
0.323
0.265
0.318
0.290
0.344
0.267
0.318
Weather
0.229
0.254
0.245
0.274
0.239
0.268
0.255
0.308
0.282
0.300
0.262
0.286
0.234
0.271
0.304
0.343
0.232
0.267
Table 1: Forecasting performance comparison. The average results of all predicted lengths are listed here. Best results are highlighted in red, and second-best results are underlined in blue.
Dataset
Full
Early
CSDI
TMDM
D 3 U
NsDiff
CNDiff
ETTh1
0.303
0.306
0.555
0.385
0.314
0.347
0.421
ETTm1
0.278
0.307
0.359
0.348
0.270
0.320
0.341
Weather
0.150
0.161
0.137
0.202
0.170
0.212
0.219
Electricity
0.176
0.209
0.257
0.463
0.174
0.287
0.213
Exchange
0.178
0.183
0.582
0.228
0.219
0.218
0.197
Traffic
0.205
0.236
–
0.557
0.199
0.363
0.300
Table 2: Probabilistic performance comparison. The results are reported with prediction length P=96 . Due to the excessive time and memory consumption of CSDI in long-term forecasting, its results are unavailable. The best results are highlighted in red , while the second-best results are blue .
Early Stop
Bernoulli
MSE
MAE
CRPS
×
×
0.450
0.420
0.322
×
✓
0.412
0.398
0.306
✓
×
0.339
0.358
0.309
✓
✓
0.333
0.357
0.335
Table 3: Ablation study of early stopping and Bernoulli timestep sampling. (Bold indicates best performance).
Figure 4: Performance comparison across training epochs under different noise schedules.
Metric
Method
10
20
50
100
200
1000
MSE
Full
0.395
0.424
0.475
0.516
0.556
0.644
Early
0.346
0.346
0.347
0.350
0.350
0.354
Time
Full
1m8s
2m13s
4m48s
9m23s
17m39s
86m28s
Early
59s (8s)
58s (8s)
4m1s (10s)
4m29s (10s)
8m36s (19s)
47m20s (1m14s)
Table 4: Performance comparison under different numbers of sampling steps and inference time on ETTm1 ( P=192 ). Green subtext reports the breakpoint estimation time.
Dataset
0.7
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
0.99
ETTm1
0.363
0.336
0.344
0.333
0.358
0.336
Weather
0.206
0.203
0.205
0.205
0.206
0.205
Exchange
0.185
0.171
0.175
0.171
0.176
0.182
Table 5: Sensitivity analysis (MSE) under different Bernoulli probability p . (Bold indicates best performance).
Variance
GT Train
GT Val
Mean
Dataset
tδ
MSE
tδ
MSE
tδ
MSE
ETTm1
350
0.333
350
0.333
350
0.333
Weather
400
0.206
350
0.206
350
0.206
Exchange
600
0.173
600
0.173
550
0.172
Table 6: Comparison of stopping points estimated using different scores.
Dataset
ETTm1
Weather
Exchange
Variance
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
MSE
MAE
Global
0.333
0.357
0.206
0.234
0.172
0.295
Instance
0.334
0.358
0.206
0.233
0.172
0.296
Table 7: Comparison between global and instance-level stopping-point estimation. (Bold indicates best performance).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Datasets
Dropout
Encoder
Decoder
ETTh1
{0.4,0.4,0.4,0.4}
{2,2,2,2}
{2,3,3,4}
ETTh2
{0.4,0.4,0.4,0.4}
{2,2,2,2}
{2,3,3,4}
ETTm1
{0.4,0.4,0.4,0.4}
{3,3,3,3}
{3,3,3,3}
ETTm2
{0.4,0.4,0.4,0.4}
{3,3,3,3}
{3,3,3,3}
Exchange
{0.2,0.2,0.2,0.2}
{2,2,2,2}
{2,2,2,2}
Weather
{0.4,0.4,0.4,0.2}
{3,3,3,3}
{3,3,3,4}
Appendix
Table A1: Best hyperparameters for different datasets. The parameter order corresponds to prediction length {96, 192, 336, 720}.
Dataset
Frequency
Variables
# Observations
ETTh1
Hourly
7
17,420
ETTh2
Hourly
7
17,420
ETTm1
15 minutes
7
69,680
ETTm2
15 minutes
7
69,680
Weather
10 minutes
21
52,696
Electricity
Hourly
321
26,304
Appendix
Table A2: Dataset statistics and forecasting configurations.
Figure A1: Qualitative comparison of probabilistic forecasts obtained using the full and truncated reverse diffusion processes. The shaded regions represent the 95% prediction intervals.
Figure A2: Sensitivity analysis on ETTm1, Weather, and Exchange datasets with stopping steps highlighted. The noise level is scaled down by a factor of T/M=50 . The estimated stopping point is indicated by a circle.
Dataset
Save (%)
Early
CSDI
TMDM
D 3 U
NsDiff
CNDiff
ETTh1
55
0.109
4.874
1.141
0.172
0.067
0.425
ETTm1
55
0.106
4.892
1.141
0.170
0.081
0.313
Weather
35
0.085
15.412
1.125
0.251
0.078
0.263
Exchange
55
0.079
6.020
1.137
0.170
0.070
0.275
Electricity
45
0.916
199.882
2.905
1.770
0.122
1.864
Traffic
40
2.280
635.500
5.266
2.507
1.238
4.890
Appendix
Table A3: Inference time (s) for generating 1 sample with prediction length P=192 , using S=100 candidates. Save denotes the percentage of reverse-sampling computation removed by early stopping relative to the complete trajectory.
ETTm1
Weather
Exchange
Schedule
Step
Metric
Full
Ours
Full
Ours
Full
Ours
Linear
T=20
MSE
0.353
0.331
0.201
0.200
0.274
0.183
βT=0.5
MAE
0.373
0.356
0.240
0.234
0.394
0.314
T=50
MSE
0.350
0.333
0.214
0.200
0.178
0.168
βT=0.3
MAE
0.370
0.358
0.249
0.235
0.302
0.295
T=100
MSE
0.363
0.327
0.201
0.198
0.200
0.167
Appendix
Table A4: Forecasting performance under different noise schedules and diffusion steps. The prediction length is set to P=192 . Bold values indicate better performance.
Dataset
Metric
P
Ours
iTransformer
PatchTST
DLinear
TimesNet
TiDE
TimeMixer
CNDiff
TimeXer
ETTh1
MSE
96
0.365
0.393
0.415
0.381
0.460
0.390
0.389
0.416
0.390
192
0.418
0.441
0.464
0.424
0.480
0.434
0.444
0.450
0.430
336
0.452
0.486
0.522
0.457
0.532
0.477
0.467
0.472
0.475
720
0.468
0.516
0.593
0.484
0.663
0.473
0.475
0.477
0.530
avg
0.426
0.459
0.499
0.437
0.534
0.444
0.444
0.454
0.456
MAE
96
0.392
0.412
0.428
0.401
0.453
0.404
0.406
0.430
0.406
Appendix
Table A5: Full forecasting results on the ETT benchmarks. The best results are highlighted in red , while the second-best results are blue . Rankings are determined using the original unrounded values.
Dataset
Metric
P
Ours
iTransformer
PatchTST
DLinear
TimesNet
TiDE
TimeMixer
CNDiff
TimeXer
Weather
MSE
96
0.152
0.166
0.157
0.183
0.178
0.187
0.161
0.261
0.152
192
0.195
0.213
0.205
0.230
0.240
0.229
0.201
0.337
0.197
336
0.248
0.263
0.257
0.270
0.306
0.280
0.250
0.263
0.251
720
0.322
0.339
0.335
0.337
0.403
0.350
0.325
0.355
0.326
avg
0.229
0.245
0.239
0.255
0.282
0.262
0.234
0.304
0.232
MAE
96
0.185
0.210
0.202
0.242
0.223
0.230
0.213
0.295
0.200
Appendix
Table A6: Full forecasting results on the remaining datasets. The best results are highlighted in red , while the second-best results are blue .
Diffusion models are typically trained with objectives that focus on local denoising targets at individual time steps (or adjacent pairs), which do not enforce consistency between predictions along the denoising trajectory. This lack of cross-time consistency can degrade performance, especially for few-step samplers. We introduce a temporal difference (TD) objective that penalizes inconsistency of the model's multi-step progress along the denoising path. By reformulating the diffusion process as a Markov reward process and casting denoising as a policy evaluation problem in reinforcement learning, we derive a unified TD approach that applies to both discrete- and continuous-time diffusion formulations. We further propose a principled sample-based reweighting method that stabilizes training. Empirically, we show that using our TD training can significantly improve sample quality measured by FID, with stronger advantages when the number of sampling steps is small, highlighting its practical utility under low-computation-budget scenarios. We provide ablation studies to justify our design choices, including pairwise loss reweighting, regularization weight, and one-step stride. Overall, our TD approach can be a general drop-in that enforces cross-time consistency and improves generation quality across different diffusion generative models.
Qizhen Ying, Yangchen Pan, Victor Adrian Prisacariu +1
Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom · School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
The prevailing inference framework for diffusion models formulates generation fundamentally as a problem of numerical integration. This perspective casts the model as an exact estimator, neglecting the inherent statistical uncertainty of the denoising process. In this work, we propose Forward-Process Aligned Diffusion prediction (\textbf{DiFA}), a training-free framework that reframes inference-time data prediction refinement as a sequential state estimation problem. Rather than reusing past outputs solely for numerical integration, DiFA treats iterative data predictions along the reverse trajectory as correlated observations to build a forward-aligned temporal consensus. Inspired by Kalman filtering, this consensus aggregates historical predictions according to structural consistency and noise-level compatibility. To counteract the over-smoothing tendency of temporal consensus, we introduce a deviation guidance mechanism to adaptively preserve residual details. Empirically, DiFA yields significant improvements on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet across the evaluated metrics, including FID, IS, and FD-DINOv2, demonstrating that aligning inference with the forward statistical structure substantially improves generative fidelity.
Shigui Li, Delu Zeng
School of Mathematics, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China · School of Electronic and Information Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
Diffusion models have become the dominant tool for high-fidelity image and video generation, yet are critically bottlenecked by their inference speed due to the numerous iterative passes of Diffusion Transformers. To reduce the exhaustive compute, recent works resort to the feature caching and reusing scheme that skips network evaluations at selected diffusion steps by using cached features in previous steps. However, their preliminary design solely relies on local approximation, causing errors to grow rapidly with large skips and leading to degraded sample quality at high speedups. In this work, we propose spectral diffusion feature forecaster (Spectrum), a training-free approach that enables global, long-range feature reuse with tightly controlled error. In particular, we view the latent features of the denoiser as functions over time and approximate them with Chebyshev polynomials. Specifically, we fit the coefficient for each basis via ridge regression, which is then leveraged to forecast features at multiple future diffusion steps. We theoretically reveal that our approach admits more favorable long-horizon behavior and yields an error bound that does not compound with the step size. Extensive experiments on various state-of-the-art image and video diffusion models consistently verify the superiority of our approach. Notably, we achieve up to 4.79× speedup on FLUX.1 and 4.67× speedup on Wan2.1-14B, while maintaining much higher sample quality compared with the baselines.