Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Huawei Technologies Ltd. · Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Information Center
Diffusion Transformers (DiTs) deliver high-fidelity image and video generation, but inference requires many sequential model evaluations. Two acceleration strategies are increasingly important: model compression makes each evaluation cheaper, while adaptive inference avoids selected teacher computation through reuse, forecasting, or speculative execution. Their combination, however, is brittle: directly applying the evaluated adaptive methods to a compressed student can degrade quality, an observed failure mode we call the Combination Gap. We link this gap to a mismatch between pointwise distillation and short-horizon execution: a student trained at teacher states need not remain reliable when its own predictions are chained. We propose TamedFlow, which trains a compressed DiT for this deployed role through cross-architecture feature alignment, a near-identity Velocity Alignment Head, and randomized rollout supervision. At inference, a lightweight Learnable Trajectory Estimator routes completed drafts: accepted drafts bypass the teacher, while rejected drafts roll back and receive one teacher rescue step. Distilling DiT-XL/2 into DiT-B/2, TamedFlow reaches FID 2.58 at 2.25× measured speedup over DDIM-50 on ImageNet 256×256. Ablations support trajectory supervision, and routing controls favor LTE over random decisions at nearly matched latency. Evaluations on ImageNet 512×512, MS-COCO, and Latte/FaceForensics extend the empirical scope.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Combination Gap and TamedFlow. Directly applying adaptive reuse to a parameter-compressed student severely degrades quality in our diagnostic. TamedFlow instead trains the compressed student for short-horizon trajectory agreement. A 4M-parameter LTE routes drafts: accepted drafts bypass the teacher; rejected drafts roll back for one teacher rescue step.
Figure 2: TamedFlow overview. Left: AlignNet, VAH, and LTE attached to the student backbone. Middle: two-stage curriculum. Stage 1 is feature alignment and Stage 2 is rollout supervision. Right: inference routes drafts via the LTE; accepted drafts bypass the teacher, rejected drafts roll back and take one teacher step.
Method
Latency (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
FLOPs (T) ↓
FID ↓
IS ↑
DDIM-50 Teacher
1.044
1.00 ×
23.74
2.35
237.62
Pure Student
0.180
5.80 ×
2.30
5.56 (+3.21)
195.07 (-42.55)
Full-Scale Few-Step Distillation
Progressive Distill. (step=4) ( Salimans and Ho, 2022 )
0.068
15.35 ×
0.474
10.25 (+7.90)
181.58 (-56.04)
LCM (step=4) ( Luo et al., 2023 )
0.072
14.50 ×
0.476
6.81 (+4.46)
202.73 (-34.89)
ARD (step=4) ( Kim et al., 2025 ) ( N=6 )
0.074
14.11 ×
0.480
4.32 (+1.97)
209.03 (-28.59)
Table 1: ImageNet 256×256 class-conditional generation with DiT-XL/2.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on ImageNet 256×256 .
Study
Variant
Accept % ↑
Speedup ↑
FID ↓
IS ↑
Component
Full TamedFlow
63.6
2.25 ×
2.58
233.43
w/o AlignNet
46.2
1.87 ×
2.95
211.34
w/o VAH
39.3
1.63 ×
3.23
205.71
w/o LTE
–
5.80 ×
5.56
195.07
Training
Full TamedFlow
63.6
2.25 ×
2.58
233.43
w/o Lroll
54.2
2.02 ×
2.71
230.15
Table 2: Ablation studies on ImageNet 256×256 at K=3 and τ=0.80 . Speedup is relative to the 50-step teacher baseline.
Figure 4: LTE routing behavior across generation. Left: confidence across sampling steps; the upper axis uses a noise-level coordinate, distinct from forward flow time. Right: score distributions of accepted and rejected drafts under τ=0.80 .
Method
Latency (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
FID ↓
CLIP-S ↑
Teacher DDIM-50
1.184
1.00 ×
13.54
30.2
Teacher DDIM-25
0.622
1.90 ×
16.84
28.9
Pure Student
0.203
5.83 ×
19.30
27.8
TaylorSeer ( N=3 )
0.580
2.04 ×
15.47
29.1
SpeCa
0.561
2.11 ×
16.63
28.4
FoCa ( N=3 )
0.565
2.09 ×
16.27
28.5
Table 3: MS-COCO 30K 256×256 text-to-image generation using fixed-step DDIM. TaylorSeer, SpeCa, and FoCa are re-implemented within our DiT-XL/2 pipeline; N denotes each method’s acceleration setting rather than TamedFlow’s draft horizon K .
Method
Speedup
FVD ↓
IS ↑
Teacher (Latte-XL)
1.00 ×
208.50
71.20
FoCa
2.06 ×
248.30
66.80
TaylorSeer
2.10 ×
253.10
65.90
TamedFlow
2.22 ×
225.10
68.90
Table 4: Latte video-DiT transfer on FaceForensics ( 256×256 , 16 frames).
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Stage 1
Stage 2
Optimizer
AdamW ( β1=0.9 , β2=0.999 )
Base learning rate
5×10−5
1×10−4
Weight decay
0.0
Learning rate schedule
cosine decay with warmup
Warmup epochs
5
Max epochs
10
80
Appendix
Table 5: Training hyperparameters for TamedFlow.
Method
Latency (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
FID ↓
IS ↑
Teacher (DiT-XL/2, 675M)
3.842
1.00 ×
2.87
235.10
TaylorSeer ( N=3 )
1.715
2.24 ×
3.76
226.75
FoCa ( N=3 )
1.628
2.36 ×
3.47
228.10
TamedFlow ( τ=0.80 )
1.594
2.41 ×
3.39
230.85
Appendix
Table 6: ImageNet 512×512 evaluation with DiT-XL/2 using fixed-step DDIM.
Method
Speedup
FID
IS
DDIM-50 Teacher
1.00 ×
2.36±0.02
237.24±0.48
TaylorSeer ( N=3 )
2.19 ×
2.71±0.04
229.13±0.62
FoCa ( N=3 )
2.21 ×
2.64±0.03
231.24±0.58
TamedFlow, τ=0.80
2.26 ×
2.56±0.03
233.89±0.51
Appendix
Table 7: Three-seed ImageNet evaluation (mean ± standard deviation over seeds).
Figure 5: Compact routing and execution accounting at K=3 , τ=0.80 . The panels use distinct denominators: (a) 14 accepted and 8 rejected routing events; (b) 42 student-covered and 8 teacher-rescue nominal steps; and (c) the separately collected component profile. The component profile totals 474.85 ms and is not a decomposition of the separate 464 ms headline average.
Figure 6: Cross-setting transfer shown as six compact native-unit panels. Columns are COCO, Latte/FaceForensics, and ImageNet 512×512 ; the top row reports quality metrics and the bottom row reports semantic or recognition scores. Row labels include the reported speedup relative to the teacher for that setting.
Support (Reference)
Accept
Reject
Count
11,984
4,683
Metric
Value
False Accept Rate (FAR)
0.063
False Reject Rate (FRR)
0.051
AUC
0.94
Continuous-target ECE (10 bins)
0.034
Appendix
Table 8: LTE classification and calibration metrics on the ImageNet 256×256 validation set at τ=0.80 , K=3 . Support counts reference labels obtained by thresholding c⋆ at 0.80. FAR and FRR use reference-reject and reference-accept events as their respective denominators. AUC uses continuous predictions; continuous-target ECE uses 10 confidence bins.
Routing policy
Teacher updates
Latency (s) ↓
FID ↓
Pure Student
0
0.180
5.56
Static: Random Steps
8
0.348
3.72
Static: Fixed Periodic
8
0.335
3.45
Dynamic: Random Accept
8
0.465
4.05
Dynamic: LTE
Adaptive
0.464
2.58
Appendix
Table 9: Routing controls on ImageNet 256×256 . Latency and FID-50K are measured. Teacher updates are fixed by the control policy or adaptive for LTE; this is not an equal-teacher-budget comparison with LTE.
Variant
Accept Rate % ↑
Speedup ↑
FID ↓
IS ↑
Full TamedFlow (default)
63.6
2.25 ×
2.58
233.43
Module and loss ablations
w/o AlignNet
46.2
1.87 ×
2.95
211.34
w/o VAH
39.3
1.63 ×
3.23
205.71
w/o Lroll
54.2
2.02 ×
2.71
230.15
w/o Lz warmup
46.2
1.81 ×
3.29
203.50
Appendix
Table 10: Protocol-consistent extended ablation on ImageNet 256×256 . Inference uses K=3 , τ=0.80 ; the randomized horizons refer to training.
Strategy
FID
Strategy
FID
FoCa
10.40
TaylorSeer
11.92
SpeCa
13.18
Dense Student
5.56
Appendix
Table 11: Same-student validation under the common DDIM-50 protocol. Only FID is reported because these direct adaptive baselines were evaluated as quality diagnostics, not as the headline latency comparison.
Figure 7: Module and training ablations from Tables 2 and 10 . The panels relate FID to acceptance or speedup at K=3 , τ=0.80 . The no-routing student has no acceptance statistic and is omitted from the acceptance panels. Points are reported operating points; no fitted trend or uncertainty interval is implied.
Solver
Method
Latency
Speedup
Accept
FID
IS
Euler
Teacher
1.044
1.00 ×
–
2.35
237.62
Euler
TamedFlow
0.464
2.25 ×
63.6%
2.58
233.43
DPM-Solver++(2M)
Teacher
1.089
1.00 ×
–
2.25
244.12
DPM-Solver++(2M)
TamedFlow
0.455
2.39 ×
75.0%
2.44
237.55
Appendix
Table 12: Solver robustness on ImageNet 256×256 . DPM-Solver++(2M) is evaluated as a handoff-safe higher-order solver diagnostic; the formal bound remains DDIM-specific.
Figure 8: Paired teacher and TamedFlow measurements under Euler and DPM-Solver++(2M), reproducing Table 12 . Speedups are relative to the corresponding solver teacher. The DPM++ result uses the stated history-reset policy; the theoretical bound remains DDIM-specific.
Figure 9: Held-out velocity mismatch and three-step endpoint drift by model variant. The panels replace the redundant numerical table and use separate zero-based axes. These means do not measure Jacobian mismatch or establish that training minimizes the theoretical bound constants; no uncertainty estimates are available.
Figure 10: Impact of draft length K and routing threshold τ on generation quality and inference efficiency. Columns: FID (left) and speedup (right). Rows: threshold τ (top) and draft length K (bottom). The sweeps motivate the default K=3 , τ=0.80 configuration.
Flow and diffusion models suffer from slow inference due to computationally expensive numerical integration. Distillation provides a promising way for a student model to learn from a teacher's dynamics, enabling one-step or few-step generation. However, existing methods often depend on curated distillation datasets, costly teacher rollouts, or auxiliary proxy networks, which complicate model training and scaling. In this work, we propose Consistent Distribution Matching, a simulation-free and data-free distillation method for accelerating diffusion and flow models while preserving strong generative capacity. Our key insight is to unify sample generation and score estimation with one student network. Thus, our framework uses only two models, a frozen teacher and a trainable student, and optimizes one objective. We prove that minimizing our objective indicates Wasserstein convergence of the student flow-map pushforwards to the teacher marginals. On ImageNet 256×256, our method attains an FID of 2.04 with a single function evaluation (1-NFE) and a 4-NFE FID of 1.37 within 40 epochs of training, surpassing the state-of-the-art distillation baselines without data. Our code code and model are available at https://consistentdmd.github.io/.
Yuxiang Fu, Qi Yan, Zike Wu +4
University of British Columbia · Vector Institute for AI · Canada CIFAR AI Chair
Diffusion models exhibit remarkable generative capability, but their high latency limits practical deployment. Many studies have attempted to reduce sampling steps to accelerate inference. Among them, MeanFlow has attracted considerable attention due to its concise formulation and remarkable performance. Nevertheless, the instability of its optimization objective and the ''mean-seeking bias'' have limited its applicability to distill large-scale industrial models. To stabilize MeanFlow for distilling large-scale models, we first introduce a warm-up technique, in which the original differential solution of MeanFlow is replaced by a discrete solution. This design avoids training collapse caused by the MeanFlow target containing a stop-gradient term from an undertrained model. Once the model acquires a preliminary ability to fit the average velocity field, we switch the optimization objective back to the differential solution, enabling further refinement. Meanwhile, to alleviate the ''mean-seeking bias'' of MeanFlow under extremely few-step inference with complex target distributions, we incorporate trajectory distribution alignment as an auxiliary objective, encouraging the student model's trajectory distribution to align more closely with that of the teacher model. Our proposed distillation framework achieves superior performance compared to existing distillation approaches when applied to the text-to-image (T2I) model FLUX.1-dev (up to 12B parameters). Furthermore, when extended to the 80B-parameter state-of-the-art (SOTA) T2I model HunyuanImage 3.0, our method continues to demonstrate robust generalization and strong performance.
Xiao He, Yang Li, Peizhen Zhang +3
1State Key Laboratory of Integrated Services Networks, Xidian University · 2Tencent Hunyuan
Diffusion Transformers (DiT) have emerged as a widely adopted backbone for high-fidelity image and video generation, yet their iterative denoising process incurs high computational costs. Existing training-free acceleration methods rely on feature caching and reuse under the assumption of temporal stability. However, reusing features for multiple steps may lead to latent drift and visual degradation. We observe that model outputs evolve smoothly along much of the diffusion trajectory, enabling principled predictions rather than naive reuse. Based on this insight, we propose PrediT, a training-free acceleration framework that formulates feature prediction as a linear multistep problem. We employ classical linear multistep methods to forecast future model outputs from historical information, combined with a corrector that activates in high-dynamics regions to prevent error accumulation. A dynamic step modulation mechanism adaptively adjusts the prediction horizon by monitoring the feature change rate. Together, these components enable substantial acceleration while preserving generation fidelity. Extensive experiments validate that our method achieves up to 5.54× latency reduction across various DiT-based image and video generation models, while incurring negligible quality degradation.
Hanshuai Cui, Zhiqing Tang, Qianli Ma +3
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