Distilled diffusion models generate high-quality images in a few sampling steps, but aligning them with task requirements and human preferences is difficult. Methods developed for multi-step diffusion models rely on differentiable rewards, or on score fields and stochastic trajectories that distilled generators may lack. We ask whether a few-step generator can be adapted using only external reward evaluations and reference samples, and show that two binary classifiers suffice. Our method, DualHeads, implements them as lightweight heads on a frozen diffusion backbone. The reward head learns which samples of the same prompt score higher, the reference head separates reference images from generated ones, and the generator maximizes a weighted sum of their logits. When the heads are optimal, this objective is KL-regularized maximization of the learned reward, and the ratio of head weights sets the regularization strength. Empirically, with both rule-based and model-based rewards, a few-step DualHeads generator reaches task rewards close to those of 40-step reinforcement learning methods while preserving image quality, at no extra inference cost. We hope that this simple and elegant dual-head formulation will help advance few-step reward-tilted generation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Four-step samples from DualHeads. Z-Image-Turbo ( Jiang et al., 2026 ) fine-tuned with DualHeads using the HPSv3 reward ( Ma et al., 2025 ) .
Figure 2: Generator update of DualHeads. The generator fθ first rolls out N steps from noise without gradient; the endpoint x1 is re-noised to xti , from which fθ predicts x^1 in one differentiable step. The prediction is noised to xt and sent to a frozen feature extractor F followed by a reference head Dϕ and a reward head Rψ ; the generator ascends the utility s=λDDϕ+λRRψ through x^1 , while the backbone and both heads stay fixed during its update.
Method
NFE
GenEval ↑
OCR ↑
Aes. ↑
ImgRwd ↑
Pick ↑
CLIP ↑
HPS ↑
Task Metric
Held-out Metric
SD3.5-M (base)
80
0.63
0.59
5.39
0.87
22.34
27.99
0.279
SD3.5-M TDM ( Luo et al., 2025 )
4
0.62
0.51
5.58
0.86
22.14
27.18
0.290
Compositional image generation
Flow-GRPO ( Liu et al., 2025 ) w/o KL
80
0.95
—
4.93
0.44
21.16
—
—
Flow-GRPO ( Liu et al., 2025 ) w/ KL
80
0.95
—
5.25
1.03
22.37
29.25
0.274
Table 1: Comparison on compositional image generation ( GenEval ), visual text rendering ( OCR ), and human preference metrics. Image quality and preference scores are computed on DrawBench ( Saharia et al., 2022 ) prompts. Baseline numbers are from Flow-GRPO ( Liu et al., 2025 ) where reported, and from our reimplementation otherwise. Abbreviations: Aes. (Aesthetics), ImgRwd (ImageReward), Pick (PickScore), CLIP (CLIPScore), HPS (HPSv2.1). NFE : number of function evaluations. Few-step RL baselines are quoted from their papers; RTDMD reports only GenEval for its GenEval -only run.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on OCR and GenEval test prompts. DualHeads + NB signifies training with the Nano Banana image pool.
Verifiable metrics
Model-based metrics
Model
NFE
GenEval ↑
OCR ↑
HPSv3 ∗↑
Aes. ↑
ImgRwd ↑
Pick ↑
CLIP ↑
HPSv2.1 ↑
Z-Image (base; Z-Image Team et al., 2025 )
100
0.66 †
0.74 †
9.93
5.36
0.92
22.39
28.47
0.285
Z-Image-Turbo (DMDR; Jiang et al., 2026 )
4
0.73 †
0.78 †
11.23
5.42
0.96
22.86
27.42
0.296
TDM-R1 ( Luo et al., 2026a )
4
0.77 †
0.79 †
12.67
5.39
1.16
22.82
28.52
0.307
DualHeads
2
0.76
0.64
12.91
5.27
1.10
22.77
27.31
0.307
DualHeads
4
0.74
0.75
13.93
5.36
1.07
23.03
27.12
0.314
Table 2: Reinforcing Z-Image ( Z-Image Team et al., 2025 ) with HPSv3 ( Ma et al., 2025 ) as the training reward ( ∗ ). Z-Image-Turbo and TDM-R1 ( Luo et al., 2026a ) are evaluated at 10242 , except the entries marked † , which are reported in Table 3 of TDM-R1 (at 5122 , with Z-Image-Turbo at 4 NFE); the DualHeads rows are EMA weights of one run (reward weight 25) after 120 training iterations, sampled with two and four steps. NFE : number of function evaluations; GenEval : official overall accuracy; OCR : mean OCR score; ImgRwd : ImageReward; CLIP : CLIPScore. The best entry per column is in bold ; shaded rows denote our method.
Figure 4: Ablations on OCR. Evaluation OCR score during training, (a) for several values of βeq with a warmed-up reward head, and (b) for a warmed-up versus a freshly initialized reward head.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
OCR
GenEval
Multi-reward
HPSv3
Model
Base model
SD3.5-M
SD3.5-M
SD3.5-M
Z-Image
LoRA rank / α
32 / 64
Sampling
Resolution
5122
Sampler; steps; CFG
LCM; 4 ; 1
Time grid
(0,0.1,0.25,0.5)
Rollouts
Group size K
24
Appendix
Table 3: Training configuration of the main runs for each reward.
Method
NFE
Aes. ↑
ImgRwd ↑
Pick ∗↑
CLIP ∗↑
HPS ∗↑
SD3.5-M (base)
80
5.39
0.87
22.34
27.99
0.279
SD3.5-M w/o CFG †
80
5.15
− 0.48
20.66
23.91
0.211
SD3.5-M w/ CFG †
80
5.38
0.93
22.46
28.80
0.282
Flow-GRPO ( Liu et al., 2025 ) w/ CFG †
80
5.28
1.02
22.48
29.12
0.266
DiffusionNFT ( Zheng et al., 2026 ) w/o CFG †
40
5.96
1.41
23.64
28.89
0.324
Choi et al. (2026b) ‡
40
6.06
1.45
23.68
29.60
0.325
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison on multi-reward training with PickScore, CLIPScore and HPSv2.1 as training rewards ( ∗ ). Image quality and preference scores are computed on DrawBench ( Saharia et al., 2022 ) prompts. Rows marked † are quoted from Table 1 of MeanFlowNFT ( Huang et al., 2026b ) , and the row marked ‡ from Choi et al. (2026b) ; the other rows are our evaluations. Abbreviations: Aes. (Aesthetics), ImgRwd (ImageReward), Pick (PickScore), CLIP (CLIPScore), HPS (HPSv2.1).
Model
Single Obj.
Two Obj.
Counting
Colors
Position
Attr. Bind.
Overall
Diffusion and flow-matching models
SD-XL ( Podell et al., 2024 )
0.98
0.74
0.39
0.85
0.15
0.23
0.55
FLUX.1 Dev ( Black Forest Labs, 2024 )
0.98
0.81
0.74
0.79
0.22
0.45
0.66
SD3.5-M ( Esser et al., 2024 )
0.98
0.78
0.50
0.81
0.24
0.52
0.63
TDM-SD3.5-M ( Luo et al., 2025 ) (4 NFE)
0.99
0.77
0.49
0.79
0.23
0.44
0.61
Multi-step RL (SD3.5-M backbone)
Appendix
Table 5: GenEval results by category. Baseline numbers are taken from Flow-GRPO ( Liu et al., 2025 ) or the original papers, and reimplemented where unavailable. Among the RL-tuned models, the best score per column is in bold and the second best is underlined ; the shaded row is our method. Obj.: object; Attr. Bind.: attribute binding.
Figure 5: Visualization of samples from the ablation in Fig. 4(a) .
Figure 6: Visual comparison of four-step and two-step generation from the four-step generators trained with the OCR reward (top) and the GenEval reward (bottom).
Figure 7: Effect of the reference pool. Same prompts with base-model (top) and Nano Banana (bottom) references: the style changes, the content does not.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison for Z-Image-based models.
Figure 9: Uncurated samples on GenEval test prompts.
Figure 10: Uncurated Z-Image samples after HPSv3 training.
Figure 11: Uncurated samples on DrawBench prompts after multi-reward training (PickScore + CLIPScore + HPSv2.1).
All samples
References
Source
Prompts
Samples
Mean r
r=1
r≤0
Kept
Mean r
r=1
OCR
Nano Banana
19,621
19,625
0.63
51.9%
28.8%
61.6%
0.97
84.3%
Teacher
5,000
40,000
0.57
21.2%
20.5%
96.8%
0.98
81.1%
GenEval
Nano Banana
33,199
50,000
0.47
58.0%
20.2%
63.3%
0.93
81.9%
Appendix
Table 6: Reward statistics of the reference data. All samples: every generated image (for the teacher, the first eight draws per prompt). References: each prompt’s highest-reward sample with r≥0.6 (OCR) or r≥0.5 (GenEval); Kept is the share of prompts that have one.
Figure 12: Random Nano Banana samples. Images for the OCR (top) and GenEval (bottom) training prompts, drawn at random. Above each image is its reward r , the OCR reward or the dense GenEval score; below is the target text (OCR) or the prompt (GenEval).
Figure 13: Random teacher-simulated samples. SD3.5-M samples for the OCR (top) and GenEval (bottom) training prompts, drawn at random; annotations as in Fig. 12 .
Figure 14: Lowest-reward Nano Banana samples. OCR (top): eight images drawn at random among those with r=0 , the minimum, which about 29% of images reach. GenEval (bottom): the eight images with the lowest dense GenEval score.
Figure 15: Lowest-reward teacher-simulated samples. OCR (top): eight samples drawn at random among those with r=0 , which about 20% of samples reach. GenEval (bottom): the eight lowest dense GenEval scores, at most one sample per prompt.
Figure 16: Ablations of the heads and of the generator loss type on OCR.
Recent advances in few-step diffusion distillation have enabled efficient image generation, yet aligning these models with human preferences remains challenging. We propose Reward-Tilted Distribution Matching Distillation (RTDMD), a two-stage framework that unifies distribution matching distillation with reward-guided reinforcement learning for few-step flow generators. We show that minimizing the KL divergence to a reward-tilted teacher distribution naturally decomposes into a distribution matching term and a reward maximization term. In the first stage, we introduce Ambient-Consistent Distribution Matching Distillation (AC-DMD), which performs subinterval-wise distribution matching and augments the fake score objective with a consistency regularizer to help the fake score model track the shifting generator distribution under limited updates. In the second stage, we jointly optimize both terms: for the reward maximization term, we derive a hybrid policy gradient that combines a GRPO-style estimator for the stochastic intermediate transitions with direct reward backpropagation through the deterministic final step, and further introduce step-subset GRPO (SubGRPO) to reduce variance. Experiments on SD3, SD3.5, and FLUX.2 demonstrate that RTDMD establishes new state-of-the-art results across preference, aesthetic, and compositional metrics with only 4 inference steps, outperforming previous few-step text-to-image generation methods. Code and models are available at https://github.com/Harahan/RTDMD.
Yushi Huang, Xiangxin Zhou, Ruoyu Wang +3
Tencent Hunyuan · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Westlake University
While few-step generative models have enabled powerful image and video generation at significantly lower cost, generic reinforcement learning (RL) paradigms for few-step models remain an unsolved problem. Existing RL approaches for few-step diffusion models strongly rely on back-propagating through differentiable reward models, thereby excluding the majority of important real-world reward signals, e.g., non-differentiable rewards such as humans' binary likeness, object counts, etc. To properly incorporate non-differentiable rewards to improve few-step generative models, we introduce TDM-R1, a novel reinforcement learning paradigm built upon a leading few-step model, Trajectory Distribution Matching (TDM). TDM-R1 decouples the learning process into surrogate reward learning and generator learning. Furthermore, we developed practical methods to obtain per-step reward signals along the deterministic generation trajectory of TDM, resulting in a unified RL post-training method that significantly improves few-step models' ability with generic rewards. We conduct extensive experiments ranging from text-rendering, visual quality, and preference alignment. All results demonstrate that TDM-R1 is a powerful reinforcement learning paradigm for few-step text-to-image models, achieving state-of-the-art reinforcement learning performances on both in-domain and out-of-domain metrics. Furthermore, TDM-R1 also scales effectively to the recent strong Z-Image model, consistently outperforming both its 100-NFE and few-step variants with only 4 NFEs. Project page: https://github.com/Luo-Yihong/TDM-R1
Yihong Luo, Tianyang Hu, Weijian Luo +1
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · hi-Lab, Xiaohongshu Inc +1
Current mainstream methods of aligning diffusion models with human preferences typically employ VLM-based reward models. However, these reward models, pre-trained for semantic alignment, struggle to capture the essential perceptual qualities-such as aesthetics, composition, and visual harmony. In this work, we argue that a model capable of high-fidelity generation must possess a profound understanding of these visual attributes. Based on this insight, we introduce the Diffusion-based Reward Model (DRM), a novel paradigm that use the pre-trained diffusion model as a powerful evaluative backbone. A key advantage of the DRM is its unique ability to assess not only the final image but also the noisy intermediate latents at any stage of the generative process. We leverage this step-wise evaluative capacity in two ways. First, we propose Step-wise GRPO, a reinforcement learning algorithm that provides dense, per-step rewards to resolve the imprecise credit assignment problem in GRPO algorithm, leading to more stable and effective alignment. Second, we introduce Step-wise Sampling, a novel inference strategy that employs the DRM as a dynamic guide to evaluate multiple generation paths at each step, steering the process towards higher-quality outcomes. Extensive experiments confirm that our approach significantly enhances the final quality of generated images. Code: https://github.com/jjaxonx/DRM.
Jaxon Zhang, Binxin Yang, Hubery Yin +2
Peking University · Work done during an internship at WeChat Vision, Tencent Inc. · WeChat Vision, Tencent Inc.