Reinforcement learning improves diffusion models using rewards on generated images, but repeated denoising and gradient estimation make training expensive. We introduce \method, an efficient method that constructs useful update directions by regressing centered rewards on centered final denoised images. It requires neither reward derivatives nor adjoint backpropagation through the sampling trajectory. A unified first-variation formulation identifies the value-gradient target with or without a trajectory-KL penalty. A population analysis under Gaussian noising explains the regression geometry, while a subspace analysis motivates clean-image coordinates. The implementation adapts rollout bandwidth and query weights to reward continuity: local rollouts suit smooth rewards, whereas broader groups provide informative contrasts for discrete rewards. Trained jointly on five rewards, one SD3.5-Medium model matches or exceeds DiffusionNFT's joint model on seven of eight metrics, reaching GenEval 0.94, OCR 0.92, and PickScore 23.82 at about one fifth of its estimated training compute. In single-reward training, \method reaches matched reward thresholds 2.1--6.7× faster than reproduced DiffusionNFT on identical hardware. Ablations support the clean-image estimator, direct direction transfer, and reward-dependent rollout choices. Code is available at https://github.com/jy-wang-tsinghua/DIFFUSIONRVGE.
Figures & tables
Model
Iter.
GenEval
OCR
PickScore
ClipScore
HPSv2.1
Aesthetic
ImgRwd
UniRwd
SD3.5-M
–
0.63
0.59
22.34
0.285
0.279
5.36
0.85
3.03
+ FlowGRPO † (GenEval)
> 5k
0.95
0.66
22.51
0.293
0.274
5.32
1.06
3.18
+ FlowGRPO † (OCR)
2k
0.66
0.92
22.41
0.290
0.280
5.32
0.95
3.15
+ FlowGRPO † (PickScore)
4k
0.54
0.68
23.50
0.280
0.316
5.90
1.29
3.37
+ DiffusionNFT (joint)
1.7k
0.94
0.91
23.80
0.293
0.331
6.01
1.49
3.49
+ Ours (joint)
1.0k
0.94
0.92
23.82
0.303
0.339
5.95
1.55
3.50
Table 1: Five-reward comparison on the metric panel of DiffusionNFT Table 1. Gray marks the rewards used to train each model. Baseline rows are published results and retain their published inference protocols; † denotes official checkpoints. DiffusionNFT lists 1.7 k iterations for its five-stage joint model, whose described stages total 1,600 (Appendix F.1 ); ours uses 1,000 updates (404 GPU-hours). Bold marks the best value in each column.
Model
Reward
Iter. (GPU-h)
GenEval
OCR
PickScore
ClipScore
HPSv2.1
Aesthetic
ImgRwd
UniRwd
SD3.5-M
–
–
0.63
0.59
22.34
0.285
0.279
5.36
0.85
3.03
FlowGRPO
GenEval
4k
0.97
0.30
21.78
0.277
0.248
5.15
0.74
2.87
FlowGRPO
OCR
1k
0.66
0.96
21.94
0.280
0.257
5.18
0.31
2.86
FlowGRPO
PickScore
4k
0.54
0.60
23.62
0.257
0.295
6.42
1.17
3.17
DiffusionNFT
GenEval
1k
0.98
0.36
21.92
0.271
0.251
5.33
0.68
2.91
DiffusionNFT
OCR
150
0.54
0.97
21.63
0.281
0.246
5.19
0.37
2.81
Table 2: Single-reward results on the panel of DiffusionNFT Table 2, with a separate OCR quality-floor run. Gray marks the primary training reward; blue marks the three floor components (PickScore, ClipScore, HPSv2.1). Published rows retain their original protocols. Metric precision matches Table 1 : two decimals for GenEval, OCR, PickScore, Aesthetic, ImageReward, and UnifiedReward; three for ClipScore and HPSv2.1.
Figure 1: Single-reward learning on 8× A800 hardware: each curve optimizes the named reward. All curves use the aligned DrawBench 200×1 , OCR 1,016 , and official GenEval 553×4 datasets. FDFO appears only in the PickScore panel because FDFO does not evaluate the non-continuous OCR and GenEval rewards.
Reward
Target
Ours
DiffusionNFT
Speed-up
PickScore
23.20
14.3
29.7
2.1×
23.50
38.2
98.5
2.6×
OCR
0.80
2.2
14.9
6.7×
0.95
4.1
25.6
6.2×
GenEval
0.80
11.5
30.3
2.6×
0.90
22.8
102.0
4.5×
Table 3: Measured GPU-hours for single-reward training to shared reward thresholds in Figure 1 .
Figure 2: PickScore cosine with the real gradient through the numerical ODE. Left and middle: noisy-state and direct clean-image regression. Right: paired clean-image-minus-noisy-state cosine. Shading denotes 95% confidence intervals from resampling prompts.
Figure 3: PickScore training with direct clean-image directions or their norm-matched Jacobian pullback to xt , shown against compute (left) and updates (right). Both arms use the same trajectory bank and actor settings.
Figure 4: Rollout comparison across three rewards. Training curves for trajectory-bank and independent-seed group regression. Batch sizes differ in GenEval and OCR, so these panels compare practical recipes at equal compute.
Stopped weight / selection
10 GPU-h
20 GPU-h
28 GPU-h
ai=1 (all 24)
0.72
0.84
0.86
ai=1−ri
0.71
0.88
0.89
ai=1{ri<1}
0.74
0.88
0.88
Random 6
0.81
0.86
0.87
Highest 6
0.62
0.67
0.75
Lowest 6 (ours)
0.81
0.87
0.92
Table 4: GenEval actor-weight ablation. Scores are interpolated within the recorded validation curves at equal GPU-hours and rounded to two decimals; bold marks the best unrounded value in each column. Only the selected query trajectories receive actor gradients; all sibling clean images remain regression observations.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: GenEval query weights at a 28 -GPU-hour budget, shown against compute and updates.
Figure 6: The all-24 continuation. The lowest-six advantage persists beyond the initial budget but narrows near 72 GPU-hours.
GPU-hours
28
35
44
52
61
Lowest 6
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
All 24
0.86
0.88
0.85
0.88
0.88
Appendix
Table 5: Longer GenEval comparison at fixed compute, using interpolation within the saved curves.
Figure 7: PickScore training across seeds, shown against GPU-hours (left) and updates (right).
Setting
PickScore
OCR
GenEval
OCR floor
Estimator
bank
bank
group
group
Prompts / update
24
8
48
48
Trajectories / prompt
24
12
24
24
Trained trajectories / prompt
24
12
6 lowest
6 lowest
Rollout
SDE, η=0.03
SDE, η=0.5
ODE
ODE
Reward evaluations / trajectory
11
11
1
1
Appendix
Table 6: Configurations at the reported checkpoints. OCR floor uses Eq. ( 43 ) with λfloor=10 and the margin schedule m=0→0.03→0.06 at updates 40 and 100 .
Updates
Update type
Prompt mix
Learning rate
0–200
bank, PickScore
1 / 0 / 0
3×10−4
200–500
group
0.20 / 0.45 / 0.35
3×10−4
500–600
group
0.20 / 0.60 / 0.20
1.35×10−4
600–700
bank
1 / 0 / 0
7.25×10−5
700–850
group
0 / 0 / 1
7.25×10−5
850–1000
group
0.20 / 0.60 / 0.20
8.75×10−5
Appendix
Table 7: Stages of the five-reward joint model. The prompt mix gives the fractions of Pick-a-Pic, GenEval, and OCR prompts per update; the first stage is the first training seed of the single-reward PickScore run in Table 2 .
Figure 8: PickScore visual results comparing the DiffusionRVGE PickScore checkpoint with the public Flow-GRPO PickScore checkpoint on DrawBench prompts. Within each pair, models use the same prompt, seed, and 40-step ODE sampler.
Figure 9: OCR visual results comparing the DiffusionRVGE quality-floor checkpoint with the public Flow-GRPO Text checkpoint on OCR test prompts. Within each pair, models use the same prompt, seed, and 40-step ODE sampler; panel labels abbreviate the prompts.
Figure 10: GenEval visual results comparing the DiffusionRVGE single-reward GenEval checkpoint with the public Flow-GRPO GenEval checkpoint on GenEval prompts. Within each pair, models use the same prompt, seed, and 40-step ODE sampler.
Figure 11: DrawBench visual results comparing the five-reward joint DiffusionRVGE checkpoint with the public DiffusionNFT multi-reward checkpoint. Each pair uses the same full prompt and seed with 40-step ODE sampling; panel labels abbreviate the prompts.
Figure 12: OCR test visual results comparing the five-reward joint DiffusionRVGE checkpoint with the public DiffusionNFT multi-reward checkpoint. Each pair uses the same full prompt and seed with 40-step ODE sampling; panel labels abbreviate the prompts.
Reinforcement learning (RL) post-training provides a direct way to align diffusion models with human preferences and task-specific rewards. However, current RL algorithms for diffusion models remain fragmented: reverse-trajectory methods rely on discretized likelihood ratios, whereas forward-matching methods train on reward-labeled noising versions of the rollout samples. This paper shows that these seemingly different losses arise from a single path-space principle. Starting from the regularized diffusion-RL objective, we use importance sampling between sampling SDEs to obtain an explicit policy-gradient estimator on trajectory space. The estimator contains the stochastic Itô integral underlying Flow-GRPO-type updates; we derive an equivalent variance-reduced value-gradient form that recovers the forward-matching structure of AWM and DiffusionNFT. This identifies the empirical gap between these method families as a variance-reduction effect rather than a difference in RL principle. The derivation yields a unified design space organized by value-gradient estimation, weight functions, and sampling choices. Within this space, we propose a multi-sample KDE value-gradient estimator that reuses rollout groups, together with scale-bounded weight families that retain stable existing recipes while excluding singular ones. Experiments on SD3.5-M and Qwen-Image models validate the variance-reduction explanation and show that the resulting recipe improves over prior diffusion-RL baselines.
Yixian Xu, Yuanrui Zhang, Shengjie Luo +2
State Key Laboratory of General Artificial Intelligence, School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Peking University · ByteDance Seed
Reward-based fine-tuning of diffusion models has largely inherited likelihood-based policy optimization developed for autoregressive large language models (LLMs). Diffusion models, however, are natively trained through velocity regression and do not directly provide the likelihood of a generated sample. Existing methods address this using transition likelihoods along stochastic denoising trajectories or evidence lower bounds (ELBOs) to approximate generated-sample likelihoods. These approximations arise from applying likelihood-based updates to models whose native training and generation operate through velocity fields. We instead take velocity matching as the starting point for reward fine-tuning. We propose reward-based velocity matching (RVM), which weights the velocity-matching loss by reward with an additional anchor regression term, requiring neither likelihood estimation nor likelihood ratios. RVM recovers Reinforce Adjoint Matching at the update level and contains DiffusionNFT as a special case, while ELBO-based methods are closely related through the same velocity-regression structure. This unified view isolates reward design and anchor velocity as principal design choices in velocity-based fine-tuning. Across text-to-image, text-to-video, and image-to-video generation, RVM matches or outperforms the evaluated trajectory-based methods. On Wan2.1-T2V-1.3B, it achieves the highest VBench Overall among the evaluated methods, with substantially lower estimated training costs than the trajectory-based approaches. For video fine-tuning, we introduce a dynamic-tracking reward that provides explicit motion feedback and improves both Dynamic Degree and overall VBench performance.
Diffusion and flow models achieve State-Of-The-Art (SOTA) generative performance, yet many practically important behaviors such as fine-grained prompt fidelity, compositional correctness, and text rendering are weakly specified by score or flow matching pretraining objectives. Reinforcement Learning (RL) fine-tuning with external, black-box rewards is a natural remedy, but diffusion RL is often brittle. Trajectory-based methods incur high memory cost and high-variance gradient estimates; forward-process approaches converge faster but can suffer from distribution drift, and hence reward hacking. In this work, we present Centered Reward Distillation (CRD), a diffusion RL framework derived from KL-regularized reward maximization built on forward-process-based fine-tuning. The key insight is that the intractable normalizing constant cancels under within-prompt centering, yielding a well-posed reward-matching objective. To enable reliable text-to-image fine-tuning, we introduce techniques that explicitly control distribution drift: (i) decoupling the sampler from the moving reference to prevent ratio-signal collapse, (ii) KL anchoring to a CFG-guided pretrained model to control long-run drift and align with the inference-time semantics of the pre-trained model, and (iii) reward-adaptive KL strength to accelerate early learning under large KL regularization while reducing late-stage exploitation of reward-model loopholes. Experiments on text-to-image post-training with GenEval and OCR rewards show that CRD achieves competitive SOTA reward optimization results with fast convergence and reduced reward hacking, as validated on unseen preference metrics.