跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.08240 · v1

FewStepRL: Fine-tuning Few-step Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning

首次提交 2026-11-06 00:19
版本更新 2026-11-06 00:19
雷达观测 2026-11-06 12:09
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a standard post-training method for diffusion models, but most RL objectives roll out the current policy at every iteration, and with a many-step sampler these rollouts typically dominate the cost of training. Few-step models cut this cost, yet they model an average velocity over an interval, whereas existing RL objectives are built for an instantaneous velocity with a many-step sampler. We adapt RL objectives to few-step models systematically in three phases, namely a transformation, a decomposition and an adaptation. The transformation to $x$-space expresses each objective we consider through a common policy prediction, at the clean end by default and at an explicitly marked level for transition or flow-map objectives, so that objectives stated over densities, velocities or rewards become comparable. The decomposition writes the gradient of each of these objectives as the sum of a self-regression toward a reference and a reward augmentation, so that a method reduces, at the gradient level, to a choice of anchors and weights. The adaptation computes each anchor from a few-step model at the end of its transport or along its tangent, with the instantaneous velocity recovered from the network itself or from an auxiliary network. This yields few-step versions of FlowGRPO, AWM, DiffusionNFT, DiffusionOPSD and ReFL in one modular codebase. In our experiments, reward-gradient-based methods are the most effective when the reward is differentiable and its gradient is affordable; otherwise DiffusionNFT-style methods generally reach high rewards in relatively few iterations despite a sometimes higher per-iteration cost. Extra inference steps show no systematic aggregate benefit in our experiments, although selected outputs visibly improve with two to four times as many sampling steps as in training.

作者备注:86pages, 12 figures, technical report

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 · 2026-11-06 00:19 · 最新观测版本

FewStepRL: Fine-tuning Few-step Diffusion Models with Reinforcement Learning

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a standard post-training method for diffusion models, but most RL objectives roll out the current policy at every iteration, and with a many-step sampler these rollouts typically dominate the cost of training. Few-step models cut this cost, yet they model an average velocity over an interval, whereas existing RL objectives are built for an instantaneous velocity with a many-step sampler. We adapt RL objectives to few-step models systematically in three phases, namely a transformation, a decomposition and an adaptation. The transformation to $x$-space expresses each objective we consider through a common policy prediction, at the clean end by default and at an explicitly marked level for transition or flow-map objectives, so that objectives stated over densities, velocities or rewards become comparable. The decomposition writes the gradient of each of these objectives as the sum of a self-regression toward a reference and a reward augmentation, so that a method reduces, at the gradient level, to a choice of anchors and weights. The adaptation computes each anchor from a few-step model at the end of its transport or along its tangent, with the instantaneous velocity recovered from the network itself or from an auxiliary network. This yields few-step versions of FlowGRPO, AWM, DiffusionNFT, DiffusionOPSD and ReFL in one modular codebase. In our experiments, reward-gradient-based methods are the most effective when the reward is differentiable and its gradient is affordable; otherwise DiffusionNFT-style methods generally reach high rewards in relatively few iterations despite a sometimes higher per-iteration cost. Extra inference steps show no systematic aggregate benefit in our experiments, although selected outputs visibly improve with two to four times as many sampling steps as in training.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗