Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) achieve high-quality generation but are costly due to iterative sampling. Dynamic-resolution sampling reduces early-stage cost by denoising at low resolution; however, uniformly upsampling all latent tokens at resolution transitions incurs redundant computation and may degrade fine-detail consistency. Existing partial upsampling strategies typically rely on local latent structure cues or single-step statistics, making it difficult to jointly capture token-text semantic relevance and token-wise representation dynamics across diffusion steps. We propose AViTS, an adaptive spatiotemporal token selection framework for dynamic-resolution DiTs. AViTS models spatial importance via latent-text attention and temporal importance via token-level feature variation across diffusion timesteps, and fuses them to enable spatiotemporal importance-aware selective upsampling: it prioritizes resolution refinement for critical tokens while deferring less important ones, thereby reducing redundant high-resolution computation and improving the quality-efficiency trade-off. AViTS achieves up to 6.34x on FLUX and nearly 9x FLOPs reduction on Qwen-Image-Edit and FLUX.1-Kontext-dev, orthogonal to distillation, quantization, and feature caching, and reaching 14.76x with distilled models. Code: https://github.com/QHR69/AViTS
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Images sampled by FLUX.1-dev with AViTS with 6.34× acceleration.
Figure 2: Token-importance distributions. (a) Distributions of attention and step variance on FLUX.1-dev. (b) Distributions of attention and step variance on Qwen-Image-Edit.
Figure 3: Heatmaps of token importance on two text-to-image examples. Attention-based selection covers instruction-relevant semantic regions, whereas step-variance-based selection focuses on regions requiring fine-grained synthesis.
Figure 4: Overview of AViTS and spatiotemporal importance estimation. (a) Three-stage dynamic-resolution sampling: Stage 1 low-res denoising with signal collection over the last NT steps, Stage 2 selective upsampling of top- K tokens, and Stage 3 full-res refinement. (b) Temporal importance from token-wise step variance across the collected snapshots. (c) Spatial importance from aggregated latent–text cross-attention (averaged over heads/blocks and collection steps); fused scores guide prioritization.
Figure 5: Token-importance maps for editing. RALU/Fresco tend to allocate importance to irrelevant regions (edges or diffuse background), which leads to semantic misalignment (Row 1), degraded color/style consistency (Row 2), and inconsistency in non-edited regions (Row 3), whereas AViTS concentrates tokens on the instruction-relevant edit areas.
Method
NFE
Acceleration
Image Reward ↑
CLIP Score ↑
Latency(s) ↓
Speed ↑
FLOPs(T) ↓
Speed ↑
FLUX.1-dev
50
25.78
1.00 ×
3719.50
1.00 ×
0.9719 (+0.00%)
32.325 (+0.00%)
60% steps
30
16.63
1.55 ×
2231.70
1.67 ×
0.9646 (-0.75%)
32.232 (-0.28%)
SpargeAttention
50
15.44
1.67 ×
2150.02
1.73 ×
0.9795 (+0.78%)
32.312 (-0.04%)
TeaCache (l=0.25)
50
14.09
1.83 ×
1937.24
1.92 ×
0.9442 (-2.85%)
32.167 (-0.49%)
TaylorSeer (N=3)
50
9.88
2.61 ×
1320.07
2.82 ×
0.9861 (+1.46%)
32.313 (-0.04%)
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of text-to-image results on FLUX.1-dev.
Figure 6: Visualization of the image generated by different methods on FLUX.1-dev . AViTS achieves the best semantic fidelity and the fastest speed (4.80×), surpassing all dynamic-resolution and feature-caching baselines.
Method
NFE
Acceleration
GEdit-EN(FULL)
Latency ( s ) ↓
Speed ↑
FLOPs ( T ) ↓
Speed ↑
SC ↑
PQ ↑
OS ↑
100% steps
50
50.20
1.00 ×
8299.54
1.00 ×
6.80
7.26
6.51
60% steps
30
32.23
1.56 ×
4979.72
1.67 ×
6.54
7.28
6.25
20% steps
10
10.47
4.79 ×
1659.91
5.00 ×
6.60
7.18
6.28
SpargeAttention
50
46.05
1.09 ×
5603.68
1.48 ×
6.46
7.25
6.21
RALU
30
23.34
2.15 ×
2730.53
3.04 ×
7.06
7.20
6.70
Table 2: Quantitative evaluation results of image editing on the GEdit-bench with FLUX.1-Kontext-dev .
Method
NFE
Acceleration
GEdit-CN(FULL)
GEdit-EN(FULL)
Latency ( s ) ↓
Speed ↑
FLOPs (T) ↓
Speed ↑
SC ↑
PQ ↑
OS ↑
SC ↑
PQ ↑
OS ↑
100% steps
50
284.51
1.00 ×
28219.71
1.00 ×
7.68
7.51
7.41
7.82
7.54
7.54
60% steps
30
172.43
1.65 ×
16931.83
1.67 ×
7.70
7.53
7.44
7.77
7.52
7.47
20% steps
10
58.66
4.85 ×
5638.18
5.01 ×
7.65
7.42
7.35
7.73
7.46
7.44
SpargeAttention
50
231.30
1.23 ×
16846.78
1.67 ×
7.87
7.57
7.56
7.81
7.53
7.50
Bottleneck
30
109.38
2.60 ×
9954.36
2.83 ×
7.44
7.59
7.28
7.62
7.40
7.24
Table 3: Quantitative evaluation results of image editing on the GEdit-bench with Qwen-Image-Edit .
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison on GEdit-Bench with Qwen-Image-Edit. AViTS achieves superior semantic preservation and visual quality at a higher acceleration ratio ( 5.24 × ) compared to state-of-the-art baselines.
Method
NFE
Acceleration
CLIP-IQA ↑
CLIP Score ↑
Latency(s) ↓
Speed ↑
FLOPs(T) ↓
Speed ↑
FLUX.1-dev [ 9 ]
50
25.78
1.00 ×
3719.50
1.00 ×
0.8494 (+0.00%)
33.402 (+0.00%)
FreqCa(N=4) [ 13 ]
50
8.38
3.08×
1116.32
3.33×
0.8472 (-0.26%)
32.255 (-3.43%)
AViTS +Feature Caching
18
3.02
8.54 ×
412.26
9.02 ×
0.8217 (-3.26%)
32.47 (-2.79%)
FLUX.1-lite-8B [ 24 ]
28
9.16
2.81 ×
1291.49
2.88 ×
0.8617 (+1.45%)
32.52 (-2.64%)
AViTS +Model Distillation
14
3.09
8.34 ×
438.76
8.48 ×
0.8484 (-0.12%)
31.87 (-4.59%)
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of text-to-image generation with other accleration methods.
Table 5: Quantitative comparison of text-to-image gen. on FLUX.1-dev.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 9: Ablation on fusion ratio and upsampling ratio. (a–c) Impact of the fusion weight α (spatial attention vs. temporal step-variance) on three models: FLUX.1-dev (ImageReward), Qwen-Image-Edit (Overall score), and FLUX.1-Kontext-dev (Overall score). α=0 uses only step-variance, α=1 uses only attention. AViTS remains strong across a wide range of α and outperforms TaylorSeer at comparable speedups (shown in legends), indicating complementarity between semantic alignment and cross-step dynamics. (d) Speed–quality trade-off on FLUX.1-dev by varying the upsampling ratio ρ : increasing ρ improves ImageReward but reduces latency speedup, revealing a clear Pareto frontier for selecting the high-resolution budget.
Resolution
Method
Latency(s) ↓
Speed ↑
ImageReward ↑
1024 × 1024
FLUX
25.78
1.00 ×
0.9719
AViTS
4.73
5.45 ×
0.9959
1440 × 1440
FLUX
52.32
1.00 ×
0.7385
AViTS
9.72
5.38 ×
0.9008
2048 × 2048
FLUX
120.03
1.00 ×
0.8371
AViTS
22.87
5.25 ×
0.8905
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison at different resolutions.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison for high-resolution generation (2048 × 2048). Compared with the original FLUX sampling at the target resolution, AViTS produces more faithful and coherent results, with better color consistency and fewer artifacts, especially for prompts involving text rendering and multi-object relations.
Figure 11: Additional visualizations of AViTS token selection for text-to-image generation. For each prompt, we show the generated result and the corresponding AViTS-focused token regions (highlighted overlays) selected by the final spatiotemporal importance score. AViTS consistently assigns more high-resolution budget to semantically critical regions (e.g., object parts/attributes, text-bearing areas, and salient regions), showing strong correlation between token prioritization and prompt intent.
Figure 12: Additional editing examples and token-allocation comparison. We compare AViTS with Fresco and RALU on diverse editing instructions. Along with the edited outputs, we visualize the tokens prioritized for high-resolution refinement. AViTS focuses on instruction-relevant regions (e.g., the target object/attribute to be modified) and assigns fewer tokens to non-edited areas, whereas Fresco/RALU often over-allocate tokens to edges or diffuse background regions, which can lead to weaker edit fidelity or reduced consistency outside the edited region.
Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have achieved state-of-the-art performance in image and video generation, but their success comes at the cost of heavy computation. This inefficiency is largely due to the fixed tokenization process, which uses constant-sized patches throughout the entire denoising phase, regardless of the content's complexity. We propose dynamic tokenization, an efficient test-time strategy that varies patch sizes based on content complexity and the denoising timestep. Our key insight is that early timesteps only require coarser patches to model global structure, while later iterations demand finer (smaller-sized) patches to refine local details. During inference, our method dynamically reallocates patch sizes across denoising steps for image and video generation and substantially reduces cost while preserving perceptual generation quality. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach: it achieves up to 3.52× and 3.2× speedup on FLUX-1.Dev and Wan 2.1, respectively, without compromising the generation quality and prompt adherence.
Image and video diffusion models allocate equal computation to every region, even when the intended scene calls for varying levels of detail. The spatial distribution of detail can often be anticipated before generation, indicating where computation can be reduced. We introduce Level-of-Token (LoT) Diffusion, a framework that turns this knowledge into an explicit multiresolution token layout (Level-of-Token layout) for adaptive and efficient generation. Tokens represent rectangular patches of varying sizes and shapes, allocating finer tokens where detail is needed and coarser tokens elsewhere. We adapt pretrained diffusion transformers to LoT layouts through a patch-wise asymmetric flow parametrization and embeddings for multiresolution tokens, preserving full-resolution flow prediction at every denoising step while processing only a reduced token sequence. LoT Diffusion enables layout-adaptive generation while preserving pretrained generative priors. We demonstrate LoT with layouts derived from semantic masks, bounding boxes, texture variance, and depth-of-field cues, as well as agentic plans. Across image and video generation, LoT offers favorable quality-efficiency tradeoffs, with significant speedups determined by the layout's token budget. Our project website is at https://georgenakayama.github.io/lotdiffusion/.
Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) have achieved state-of-the-art video generation quality, but they incur immense computational cost because standard inference applies the same number of denoising steps uniformly to every token in the sequence. It is well known that human vision ignores vast amounts of redundant motion. Why, then, do our densest models treat every spatiotemporal token with equal priority? In this paper, we introduce Heterogeneous Step Allocation (HSA), a training-free inference algorithm that assigns varying step budgets to different spatiotemporal tokens based on their velocity dynamics. To resolve the resulting sequence-length mismatch without sacrificing global context, HSA introduces a KV-cache synchronization mechanism that allows active tokens to attend to the full sequence while entirely bypassing inactive tokens. Furthermore, we derive a cached Euler update that advances the latent states of skipped tokens in a single operation without additional model evaluations. We evaluate HSA on the Wan-2 and LTX-2 models for both text-to-video (T2V) and image-to-video (I2V) generation. Our results demonstrate that HSA significantly outperforms previous state-of-the-art caching methods and the vanilla Flow Matching baseline, especially at aggressive acceleration regimes (e.g., 50% and 25% runtimes). Crucially, HSA achieves a superior quality-runtime Pareto frontier without the need for expensive offline profiling, robustly preserving structural integrity and generation quality even under tight computational budgets. Project page: https://ernestchu.github.io/hsa