Organizations: ETAS Research · University of Stuttgart · Max Planck Research School for Intelligent Systems (IMPRS-IS) · School of AI and Advanced Computing, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University · NEC Laboratories Europe
Discrete diffusion models have emerged as a powerful paradigm for solving combinatorial optimization (CO) problems on graphs by learning to sample high-quality solutions. A common inference-time approach is to generate multiple candidate solutions independently and return the best-performing sample, improving solution quality at the expense of an increase in computational cost. In this work, we introduce PT-Denoise, an inference-time procedure that allows these concurrent denoising trajectories to interact through parallel tempering, without requiring retraining or fine-tuning of the underlying denoiser. Our method assigns a temperature to each diffusion process and allows processes to swap temperatures based on their relative performance. This dynamically reallocates promising, low-energy trajectories to colder, more concentrated sampling regimes while allowing higher-energy states to escape local minima through randomized exploration. Experiments on canonical graph-structured CO problems show that our approach consistently improves the quality of the best solution found, while only adding minimal computational overhead.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of our approach. Top: One diffusion step of a single replica within an ensemble. We alternate between diffusion steps and replica swaps. Bottom: Swapping replicas between rungs on the temperature ladder. Neighboring temperature rungs are paired; in this example, the pairs are (τ1,τ2),(τ3,τ4) . A uniform one-to-one matching is sampled between the slots of paired temperatures. Swaps are proposed between matched slots and accepted with probability αt(i,j) .
RB Small
RB Large
Method
IS Size ↑
Relative Gap ↓
Time
IS Size ↑
Relative Gap ↓
Time
DiffUCO
19.74 ± 0.03
1.79% ± 0.15
12ms
41.65 ± 0.03
3.48% ± 0.08
303ms
DiffUCO + Temp. Ladder
19.93 ± 0.04
0.83% ± 0.18
12ms
41.66 ± 0.02
3.45% ± 0.05
303ms
DiffUCO + PT-Denoise (ours)
20.01 ± 0.01
0.47% ± 0.03
13ms
41.68 ± 0.02
3.40% ± 0.06
303ms
SDDS
19.95 ± 0.02
0.72% ± 0.12
12ms
41.97 ± 0.07
2.73% ± 0.16
304ms
SDDS + Temp. Ladder
20.01 ± 0.02
0.44% ± 0.12
12ms
41.99 ± 0.02
2.69% ± 0.09
303ms
Table 1: Results on MIS . Top: diffusion methods. Center: learned non-diffusion methods. Bottom: non-learned heuristics.
Table 3: Results on maximum cut. Top: diffusion methods. Center: learned non-diffusion methods. Bottom: non-learned heuristics.
RB Small
Method
Clique Size ↑
Relative Gap ↓
Time
DiffUCO
18.24 ± 0.14
4.27% ± 0.74
23ms
DiffUCO + PT-Denoise (ours)
18.91 ± 0.13
0.75% ± 0.67
24ms
SDDS
18.98 ± 0.00
0.37% ± 0.02
23ms
SDDS + PT-Denoise (ours)
18.99 ± 0.00
0.33% ± 0.03
24ms
EGN
12.02
36.90%
82ms
Table 4: Results on maximum clique. Top: diffusion methods. Center: learned non-diffusion methods. Bottom: non-learned heuristics.
Figure 2: The best relative gap achievable on MIS, RB small within each given per-instance compute budget. The numbers next to each data point indicate how many replicas can be processed within the compute budget.
Combinatorial optimization finds the best feasible choices among discrete alternatives in routing, scheduling, graph problems, and resource allocation.