Preference optimization is a standard alignment method for generative models, yet extending it to continuous-time dynamics remains non-trivial. In flow matching, reward-driven updates modify transport trajectories without an inherent constraint to the pretrained data manifold and can move terminal samples off the pretrained support. We formalize this failure mode as manifold drift. Theoretically, we show that optimal flow matching recovers the terminal data distribution, whereas a preference update leaves the pretrained manifold whenever its induced terminal displacement has a nonzero normal component. As a remedy, we propose ThermoDPO, a temperature-controlled objective that anchors pairwise preference optimization on preferred samples. Across temperature regimes, this objective connects rejection sampling fine-tuning and FlowDPO and controls a pointwise reconstruction-based surrogate for manifold distance. To counteract diminished signals at low temperatures, we further introduce a weighted variant, ThermoDPO-weighted. On the main toy benchmark, ThermoDPO-weighted attains a StrictScore of 0.899, compared with 0.629 for FlowDPO and 0.857 for FlowDPO+RFT. On SD3.5-M at CFG = 4.5, it improves OCR by 47.5% and the average of four metrics by 16.0%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of FlowDPO (left) and ThermoDPO -weighted (right). FlowDPO improves preference with manifold drift, whereas ThermoDPO -weighted improves preference while preserving quality.
Figure 2: Core intuition of ThermoDPO . Flow Matching (gray) transports noise to the pretrained data manifold. FlowDPO (green) may reach preferred regions through an off-manifold displacement, whereas ThermoDPO (red) adds a winner-side anchor intended to keep the redirected mass closer to the pretrained manifold. The formal statements and their assumptions are summarized in Tab. 1 ; the behavior is evaluated in the toy study (Fig. 3 ) and real-image study (Fig. 1 ).
Result
Main statement
I. Manifold preservation and drift
Thm. 3.4
FM can exactly recover p0 and its terminal support (gray path in Fig. 2 ).
Thm. 3.5
A nonzero normal component in the induced endpoint update is sufficient for off-manifold drift (green path in Fig. 2 ).
II. Connection to RFT and FlowDPO
Thm. 4.1
As τ↓0 , ThermoDPO conditionally reduces to the RFT objective.
Thm. 4.2
For τ>0 , ThermoDPO decomposes into FlowDPO and a winner-side anchor.
Table 1: Theorems’ roadmap. The analysis proceeds from characterizing manifold preservation and drift, through connecting ThermoDPO to RFT and FlowDPO, to controlling winner-side manifold drift.
Figure 3: Toy example of manifold drift under direct preference optimization . Starting from the same pretrained flow matching (FM) reference model, FlowDPO drives terminal samples toward preferred regions but also causes a deviation from the pretrained data manifold. In contrast, ThermoDPO variant preserves the overall manifold structure much better while still improving alignment with the preference signal.
Method
Win (%) ↑
Loss (%) ↓
StrictWin (%) ↑
OnManifold (%) ↑
WinQuality ↑
StrictScore ↑
RFT
93.6
0.3
83.4
88.3
0.891
0.858
FlowDPO ( β=1 )
92
0.8
0
0
0
0
FlowDPO ( β=10 )
76.7
2.7
3.2
3.2
0.042
0.033
FlowDPO ( β=100 )
43.4
17.5
37.7
88.2
0.868
0.629
FlowDPO ( β=500 )
41.8
18.2
35.6
88.3
0.852
0.620
FlowDPO ( β=1 ) + RFT
91.7
0.3
82.9
88.5
0.903
0.857
Table 2: Toy results comparing RFT, FlowDPO variants, Diffusion-SDPO, Linear-DPO, χ PO, and ThermoDPO -weighted . All methods start from the same pretrained flow-matching reference model and are fine-tuned for 10K steps. Win and Loss measure occupancy of the preferred and dispreferred regions regardless of manifold validity; StrictWin requires samples to be both preferred and on-manifold; OnManifold measures geometric validity; WinQuality is the fraction of preferred samples that remain on-manifold; and StrictScore:=0.5⋅StrictWin+0.5⋅OnManifold summarizes the alignment-preservation trade-off. Best results are highlighted in bold ; second-best results are underlined .
Model
CFG
GenEval [ 17 ] ↑
OCR ↑
HPSv3.0 [ 45 ] ↑
UniRwd [ 62 ] ↑
Overall Gain ↑
SD3.5-M (Baseline)
2.0
0.53
0.36
5.38
2.78
–
4.5
0.63
0.59
8.68
3.03
–
RFT [ 65 , 5 ]
2.0
0.68 (+7.9%)
0.67 (+13.6%)
8.98 (+3.5%)
3.11 (+2.6%)
+6.9%
4.5
0.70 (+11.1%)
0.74 (+25.4%)
9.59 (+10.5%)
3.19 (+5.3%)
+13.1%
FlowDPO [ 39 ] ( β=100 )
2.0
0.49 (-22.2%)
0.93 (+57.6%)
7.18 (-17.3%)
2.97 (-2.0%)
+4.0%
4.5
0.46 (-27.0%)
0.70 (+18.6%)
6.83 (-21.3%)
2.89 (-4.6%)
-8.6%
Table 4: Quantitative comparison on SD3.5-M . All compared methods are trained using the OCR preference pair dataset, while evaluation is conducted across GenEval, OCR, HPSv3.0, and UniRwd. For each metric, we report the absolute score at both CFG settings, and report the relative change (%) with respect to the SD3.5-M baseline at the CFG =4.5 . The overall score is defined as the macro-average relative gain across these four metrics. Best results are highlighted in bold and the second-best results are underlined .
Figure 4: Pairwise human evaluation of ThermoDPO -weighted against different baselines on text accuracy and visual quality over 30 prompts. Each stacked bar reports the percentage of prompts for which ThermoDPO -weighted is preferred, tied, or dispreferred relative to the corresponding baseline. ThermoDPO -weighted shows consistently stronger performance on visual quality while remaining competitive on text accuracy.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Illustration of different temperature schedules τ(t) used in ThermoDPO , including the linear schedule τ(t)=t , the SNR-style schedule β⋅τ(t)=t2+(1−t)2t2 , and the power schedules β⋅τ(t)=t10 and β⋅τ(t)=t0.1 . These schedules control the trade-off between terminal manifold preservation and preference-driven trajectory deformation.
Method
Win (%) ↑
Loss (%) ↓
StrictWin (%) ↑
OnManifold (%) ↑
WinQuality ↑
StrictScore ↑
ThermoDPO with τ(t)=βt
ThermoDPO ( t , β=1 )
81.7
1.0
63.5
72.4
0.778
0.68
ThermoDPO ( t , β=10 )
50.7
12.8
44
85.9
0.87
0.65
ThermoDPO ( t , β=100 )
42.5
17.1
36.4
88
0.856
0.622
ThermoDPO ( t , β=500 )
41.2
17.9
35
88
0.849
0.615
ThermoDPO with τ(t)=β1t2+(1−t)2t2
Appendix
Table 5: Toy experiment results comparing ThermoDPO variants and ThermoDPO -weighted variants. Best results are in bold , and second-best results are underlined . For Loss, lower is better; for all other metrics, higher is better.
Method
Itr.
Win (%) ↑
Loss (%) ↓
StrictWin (%) ↑
OnManifold (%) ↑
WinQuality ↑
StrictScore ↑
RFT
1K
89.2
1.5
78.1
85.8
0.876
0.819
RFT
10K
93.6
0.3
83.4
88.3
0.891
0.858
RFT
50K
96.8
0.1
92.4
94.9
0.954
0.937
RFT
100K
97.5
0.0
94.3
96.5
0.967
0.954
Appendix
Table 6: Toy experiment results of RFT.
Method
Win (%) ↑
Loss (%) ↓
StrictWin (%) ↑
OnManifold (%) ↑
WinQuality ↑
StrictScore ↑
Plane ( II=0 , K=0 )
RFT
95.6
0
90.2
94.5
0.943
0.923
FlowDPO ( β=1 )
85.1
0.1
47.6
59.1
0.56
0.534
FlowDPO ( β=10 )
35.1
15.4
31.2
78.5
0.889
0.549
FlowDPO ( β=100 )
30.3
19.1
27.8
94.3
0.918
0.611
FlowDPO ( β=500 )
34.1
15.9
30.7
79.1
0.9
0.549
Appendix
Table 7: Toy experiment results comparing FlowDPO and ThermoDPO -weighted variants across manifolds with different curvature. Best results are in bold for each geometry. II means the second fundamental form, and K means the Gaussian curvature.
Figure 6: Example screenshot of the human-evaluation interface used in our study. The interface displays the prompt together with the candidate images under comparison for the current example.
Figure 7: Prompts in Appendix E.4 (from left to right from top to bottom).
Figure 8: Qualitative results of FlowDPO ( β=100 ) on SD3.5-M.
Figure 9: Qualitative results of ThermoDPO -weighted ( β=100 ) on SD3.5-M.
Figure 10: Qualitative results of FlowDPO + KL ( β=100 ) on SD3.5-M.
Figure 11: Qualitative results of FlowDPO + RFT ( β=100 ) on SD3.5-M.
Figure 12: Qualitative results of Original Stable Diffusion 3.5-M.
Figure 13: Qualitative results of RFT.
Figure 14: Prompts in Fig. 1 (from left to right from top to bottom).
Model
CFG
GenEval [ 17 ] ↑
OCR ↑
UniRwd [ 62 ] ↑
HPSv3.0 [ 45 ] ↑
FLUX.2-klein-base-4B (Baseline)
1.0
0.2951
0.1360
0.4327
0.6506
4
0.7347
0.5475
0.6358
9.0675
FlowDPO [ 39 ] ( β=100 )
1.0
0.5426
0.8888
0.5703
6.6977
4
0.6649
0.8349
0.6165
7.8769
ThermoDPO -weighted ( t , β=100 )
1.0
0.6857
0.5162
0.6230
8.3607
4
0.7766
0.7241
0.6663
9.5420
Appendix
Table 8: Quantitative comparison on FLUX.2-klein-base-4B . All compared methods are trained using the OCR preference pair dataset, while evaluation is conducted across GenEval, OCR, UniRwd and HPSv3.0. For each metric, we report the absolute score at both CFG settings. Best results are highlighted in bold .
Preference alignment for flow and diffusion models now spans online reinforcement learning and offline preference optimization, but the relation between these methods remains unclear. In particular, existing forward-process alignment methods require fresh samples from the current model, while offline methods based on fixed preference pairs rely primarily on positive-only fine-tuning or DPO-style likelihood-ratio surrogates. We organize these approaches through a divergence-based framework and introduce FlowCPO, an offline forward-KL objective that uses both preferred and dispreferred samples without online rollouts. For linear interpolation, we show under explicit regularity conditions that the forward-KL objective is bounded by a contrastive flow matching loss, yielding a tractable surrogate on fixed data. We further show that this loss is nonnegative, whereas the signed regression loss of simplified FlowDPO can be unbounded below. In the in-domain setting, FlowCPO achieves higher mean GenEval and OCR scores than the evaluated baselines, reaching 0.84 and 0.87 versus 0.81 and 0.74 for FlowDPO at CFG 3.0. In the out-of-domain setting, the results are mixed, with the best GenEval result but lower reward scores than RFT on several metrics.
Yansen Han, Shengyi Liao, Peng Sun +4
Westlake University · Zhejiang University · Kling Team, Kuaishou Technology
Existing preference datasets for text-to-image models typically store only the final winner/loser images. This representation is insufficient for rectified flow (RF) models, whose generation is naturally indexed by a specific prior noise sample and follows a nearly straight denoising trajectory. In contrast, prior DPO-style alignment for diffusion models commonly estimates trajectories using an independent forward noising process, which can be mismatched to the true reverse dynamics and introduces unnecessary variance. We propose Prior Noise-Aware Preference Optimization (PNAPO), an off-policy alignment framework specialized for rectified flow. PNAPO augments preference data by retaining the paired prior noises used to generate each winner/loser image, turning the standard (prompt, winner, loser) triplet into a sextuple. Leveraging the straight-line property of RF, we estimate intermediate states via noise-image interpolation, which constrains the trajectory estimation space and yields a tighter surrogate objective for preference optimization. In addition, we introduce a dynamic regularization strategy that adapts the DPO regularization based on (i) the reward gap between winner and loser and (ii) training progress, improving stability and sample efficiency. Experiments on state-of-the-art RF T2I backbones show that PNAPO consistently improves preference metrics while substantially reducing training compute.
Yunhong Lu, Qichao Wang, Hengyuan Cao +2
Zhejiang University · Shanghai Institute for Advanced Study-Zhejiang University · Shanghai Institute for Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Sciences
We propose a deterministic adjoint matching framework that formulates human preference alignment for flow-based generative models as an optimal control problem over velocity fields. One can directly regress the control toward a value-gradient-induced target under the current policy, leading to a simple and stable training objective. Building on this perspective, we introduce a truncated adjoint scheme that focuses computation on the terminal portion of the trajectory, where reward-relevant signals concentrate, which yields substantial computational savings while preserving alignment quality. We further generalize the framework beyond standard KL-based regularization, allowing more flexible trade-offs between alignment strength and distributional preservation. Experiments on SiT-XL/2 and FLUX.2-Klein-4B demonstrate consistent gains across multiple alignment metrics, along with substantially improved diversity and mode preservation.