Organizations: Institute of Information Engineering, CAS · School of Cyber Security, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Alibaba Group · Key Lab. of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing Technology, CAS · Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence · School of Computer Science and Tech., University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Key Laboratory of Big Data Mining and Knowledge Management, CAS
Diffusion feature, i.e., intermediate activations extracted from diffusion model backbones, has emerged as a promising approach for unifying generation and vision understanding (discrimination). Despite the advancement of diffusion backbones into Diffusion Transformers (DiT), it has been found in previous literature that DiT models tend to yield weaker features despite their stronger generation capability. This poses a threat to good generation-understanding unification. In this work, we show via controlled from-scratch training that long skip connections (LSCs) affect feature quality: a DiT with LSCs can produce better features. Furthermore, through detailed diagnosis, we reveal the mechanism causing this effect. Specifically, the input to a diffusion backbone contains both the latent image and the diffusion noise, where the diffusion noise, though appearing in the form of noises, actually reflects the information of the diffusion trajectory. To make the final prediction of a noisy variable (v or ε), the diffusion backbone needs both signals. However, carrying both signals through the main backbone effectively "pollutes" the image signal with noises, leading to poor feature quality. In comparison, LSCs can shortcut diffusion noises directly to where they are needed, leaving much weaker noise signals in the main backbone, thus improving feature quality. To name the broader impact, this reveals that LSCs are not a mere trick but closely related to the diffusion objective. The code is at https://github.com/Darkbblue/dit-lsc.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: (a) Compared with U-Net diffusion models, DiT models yield diffusion features with relatively low understanding capability. (b) Most DiTs do not have LSCs, so the diffusion noise has to go through the target reconstruction section, causing features in this section to degrade. (c) We reveal a unique function of long skip connections (LSCs) in diffusion backbones: they work as shortcuts to transport the diffusion noise directly from the downsampling stage to the upsampling stage, thus bypassing the middle section, where the most performative diffusion features can be extracted.
Figure 2: (a) A typical U-Net architecture of modern diffusion models is not purely convolutional but contains many large embedded ViT modules. (b) A DiT backbone can, from a certain perspective, be viewed as extracting an embedded ViT module and greatly extending it. (c) We can fold the DiT chain in half to form an LSC-augmented DiT.
Table 1: Comparison of the six benchmarking settings we use throughout this study.
LSC Setting
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
w/o LSC
20.87
34.68
52.62
64.70
30.35
50.22
0.70
w/ LSC
14.39
41.10
60.68
65.69
36.32
51.55
0.74
w/ LSC 100k
21.67
38.85
57.36
64.43
35.24
50.70
0.73
Table 2: Discriminative performance evaluated on all six settings as listed in Table 1 . Plus, the FID scores are obtained under CFG=1.5. Best/second marked as bold and underlined .
Figure 3: Correlation Decay Slope measuring results, where we report the negative slope of the linearly regressed lines.
Figure 4: The noise bypassing hypothesis, where we use gray arrows to indicate noises and their width as noise strength . With LSCs, the diffusion noise is shortcut through LSCs, leaving only weak noises into the target reconstruction section. Without LSCs, the diffusion noise is carried through the target reconstruction section, leading to feature degradation.
Figure 5: Mutual information between each layer’s activation and target/diffusion noise, measured using MINE. Shadows indicate variance across three seeds.
Setting
Loss@1k
Loss@5k
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
w/o LSC
-
-
20.87
34.68
52.62
64.70
30.35
w/ LSC
0.1744
-
14.39
41.10
60.68
65.69
36.32
z0high+ϵ
0.1189
0.0705
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
z0high+ϵ′
0.1309
0.1222
37.04
26.76
44.43
58.43
22.59
z0′high+ϵ
0.1196
0.1023
306.92
20.68
39.65
50.97
18.67
Table 3: Causal intervention experiment to separate the effect of high-frequency semantics and diffusion noises. All settings are trained for 400k steps before evaluation.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
LSC Setting
SPair (a)
Horse-21
w/o LSC
34.68
30.35
w/o LSC + MAS
36.32
31.27
w/ LSC
41.10
36.32
w/ LSC + MAS
44.55
36.51
Appendix
Table 4: Comparing the massive activation suppression method (MAS) proposed in [ 11 ] on different tasks.
Setting
Channel Scale Median
Channel Scale Mean
Channel Scale Top5
w/o LSC
7.36
8.41
555.50, 386.00, 302.00, 282.75, 50.43
w/ LSC
7.32
10.82
273.75, 233.12, 217.00, 141.12, 91.56
Appendix
Table 5: Measuring the massive activation phenomenon without and with LSCs.
Model
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
w/ LSC
14.39
41.10
60.68
65.69
36.32
51.55
0.74
Param-Conv
21.31
38.62
55.83
65.04
31.62
45.90
0.76
Flops-Conv
19.09
39.04
58.31
67.03
32.05
45.84
0.79
Param-Swin
18.53
44.35
60.65
68.22
28.02
43.98
0.76
Flops-Swin
16.20
45.96
62.52
69.56
29.81
45.27
0.75
Appendix
Table 6: Generation and discrimination performance of DiT models with actual resolution changes. Best and second marked as bold and underlined .
Model
#Params
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
SD1.5
1B
62.79
77.78
86.04
57.90
64.10
0.86
SD2.1
1B
65.20
80.00
86.73
58.21
65.23
0.88
SDXL
3.5B
63.14
81.72
88.68
63.20
74.47
0.83
PGV2
3.5B
65.66
83.44
92.31
61.73
74.74
0.93
PixArt-Sigma
0.6B
60.23
72.77
81.72
55.28
26.17
0.77
HunyuanDiT
1.5B
67.88
80.50
90.02
62.93
77.50
0.94
Appendix
Table 7: Comparison of diffusion features extracted from prevalent large-scale text-to-image models on all six settings in Table 1 . Best and second are marked as bold and underlined .
Model
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
w/o LSC
22.00
33.65
48.79
60.19
29.73
50.54
0.74
w/ LSC
21.53
34.91
51.28
60.30
30.37
50.65
0.75
Appendix
Table 8: Comparing v -prediction DiTs without and with LSCs.
Model
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
w/o LSC
40.42
14.49
26.38
45.16
11.91
41.65
0.66
w/ LSC
39.49
14.87
26.38
43.40
11.93
41.80
0.67
skewed LSC
38.35
14.76
25.92
44.74
11.58
42.21
0.67
Appendix
Table 9: Comparing x -prediction DiTs without and with LSCs.
Figure 6: Quality-layer curves from three different prediction types.
Model
FID
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
DiT
2.27
44.01
64.89
77.62
39.29
53.04
0.76
U-ViT
2.29
53.53
66.69
75.02
40.53
53.97
0.84
Skip-DiT
2.29
41.91
68.29
73.61
39.08
52.53
0.73
Appendix
Table 10: Comparing open-source DiT models with LSCs. Best results marked as bold . The FID scores are taken from the official reports, and the discriminative capability is evaluated using the six settings in Table 1 .
Figure 7: Mutual information between each layer’s activation and noise/target information, measured using MINE, under the second setting.
Figure 8: Quality-layer curves (x-axis for layer depth and y-axis for feature quality) of different diffusion backbones. Green dots mark the first peaks, and purple dots mark the second peaks. Quality is evaluated under the Spair (a) setting of Table 1 .
Figure 9: Different LSC designs to be tested in experiments. We use dotted lines to indicate LSCs. In this figure, the number of layers and position of LSCs exactly reflect the architecture of the modified DiT models.
Figure 10: Quality-layer curves under three LSC variants. The quality is evaluated using SPair (a) setting.
LSC Setting
SPair (a)
SPair (b)
SPair (c)
Horse-21
CityScapes
Depth
skewed LSC
42.33
58.93
66.76
37.08
51.16
0.74
upper LSC
36.86
52.69
61.56
31.91
50.11
0.71
lower LSC
35.60
52.54
61.18
28.72
49.55
0.70
Appendix
Table 11: Discriminative performance evaluated on all six settings the same as Table 2 . Best/second marked as bold and underlined .
Figure 11: Per-layer feature quality from the original model and the model fine-tuned with LSC inserted. The quality is evaluated using [email protected]img↑ .
Figure 12: Feature PCA visualization of the original PixArt-Sigma model and the fine-tuned version with LSCs.
LSC Type
Parameter Size
Percentage w.r.t. w/o LSC
w/o LSC
675,129,632
100.0%
w/ LSC
709,709,216
105.1%
upper LSC
691,089,440
102.4%
lower LSC
691,089,440
102.4%
skewed LSC
701,729,312
103.9%
Appendix
Table 12: Parameter sizes of different LSC designs, compared to the original w/o LSC .
School of Artificial Intelligence, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Future Networks, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China · Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology, Shenzhen, China