跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.36665 · v1

Haste Makes Waste? Towards Safe Few-Step Text-to-Image Models

首次提交 2026-10-27 13:33
版本更新 2026-10-27 13:33
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

While few-step distilled text-to-image models have gained traction due to their fast generation times, the speed-up implications on their unsafe generation rates remain unknown. We uncover an inherent tension between speed and safety: few-step models are often more unsafe than their teachers, and reducing the number of inference steps consistently raises unsafe generation rates. We further find that acceleration makes unsafe concepts harder to erase in few-step models, with existing concept-erasure methods markedly less effective than in teachers. We offer a mechanistic diagnosis for why erasure methods fail on few-step models, finding that the fragility of few-step models' generation process and the way generation guidance is usually distilled into those models may hinder established concept-erasure methods. To address the speed-safety trade-off, we propose DICE (Distillation-Integrated Concept Erasure), a post-distillation erasure method tailored for few-step models. DICE aligns both its latent construction and its generation-preservation loss with the distillation method that produced the model, keeping erasure faithful to few-step models. DICE demonstrates strong results in our evaluation. For example, on FLUX Schnell, DICE reduces unsafe-generation rate to 0.046 (vs. at least 0.161 for prior erasure methods we test), while mostly preserving benign generation quality.

作者备注:Accepted at IEEE S&P 2027

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-27 13:33 · 最新观测版本

Haste Makes Waste? Towards Safe Few-Step Text-to-Image Models

While few-step distilled text-to-image models have gained traction due to their fast generation times, the speed-up implications on their unsafe generation rates remain unknown. We uncover an inherent tension between speed and safety: few-step models are often more unsafe than their teachers, and reducing the number of inference steps consistently raises unsafe generation rates. We further find that acceleration makes unsafe concepts harder to erase in few-step models, with existing concept-erasure methods markedly less effective than in teachers. We offer a mechanistic diagnosis for why erasure methods fail on few-step models, finding that the fragility of few-step models' generation process and the way generation guidance is usually distilled into those models may hinder established concept-erasure methods. To address the speed-safety trade-off, we propose DICE (Distillation-Integrated Concept Erasure), a post-distillation erasure method tailored for few-step models. DICE aligns both its latent construction and its generation-preservation loss with the distillation method that produced the model, keeping erasure faithful to few-step models. DICE demonstrates strong results in our evaluation. For example, on FLUX Schnell, DICE reduces unsafe-generation rate to 0.046 (vs. at least 0.161 for prior erasure methods we test), while mostly preserving benign generation quality.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗