A.1 Proof of Proposition 4.1 Proposition 4.1 For any bounded measurable function τ(t): [0, T ] R, the following Reverse SDEs [ (1 + τ Eq. (20) is a reverse-time SDE running[ from T to 0, thus (there)are two additional minus ] signs in Eq. (21) before term A.2 Two Reparameterizations and Exact Solution under Exponential Integrator In this subsection, we will show the exact solution of SDE in both data prediction reparameterization and noise prediction reparameterization. The noise term in data prediction has smaller variance than noise prediction ones, implying the necessity of adopting data prediction reparameterization for the SDE sampler. The computation of variance uses the Itô Isometry, which is a crucial fact of Itô integral. Similar with Proposition 4.2, Eq. (37) can be solved analytically, which is shown in the following propositon: Following the derivation in Proposition 4.2, the mean of the Itô integral term is: [ A.2.4 Comparison between Data and Noise Reparameterizations In Table 1 we perform an ablation study on data and noise reparameterizations, the experiment results show that under the same magnitude of stochasticity, the proposed SA-Solver in data reparameterization has a better convergence which leads to better FID results under the same NFEs. In this subsection, we provide a theoretical view of this phenomenon.

As outlined in Sec. 3, thep-th TTM is simply thep-th order Taylor polynomialapplied to an ODE.

Table Pre-computing reduce NVIDIA speedup 4.2 Belo Memory The storage.

Higher-order ODE solvers have become a standard tool for accelerating diffusion probabilistic model (DPM) sampling, motivating the widespread view that first-order methods are inherently slower and that increasing discretization order is the primary path to faster generation. This paper challenges this belief and revisits acceleration from a complementary angle: beyond solver order, the placement of DPM evaluations along the reverse-time dynamics can substantially affect sampling accuracy in the low-neural function evaluation (NFE) regime. We propose a novel training-free, first-order sampler whose leading discretization error has the opposite sign to that of DDIM. Algorithmically, the method approximates the forward-value evaluation via a cheap one-step lookahead predictor. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that the resulting sampler provably approximates the ideal forward-value trajectory while retaining first-order convergence. Empirically, across standard image generation benchmarks (CIFAR-10, ImageNet, FFHQ, and LSUN), the proposed sampler consistently improves sample quality under the same NFE budget and can be competitive with, and sometimes outperform, state-of-the-art higher-order samplers. Overall, the results suggest that the placement of DPM evaluations provides an additional and largely independent design angle for accelerating diffusion sampling.

During image editing, existing deep generative models tend to re-synthesize the entire output from scratch, including the unedited regions. This leads to a significant waste of computation, especially for minor editing operations. In this work, we present Spatially Sparse Inference (SSI), a general-purpose technique that selectively performs computation for edited regions and accelerates various generative models, including both conditional GANs and diffusion models. Our key observation is that users tend to make gradual changes to the input image.

While 2D diffusion models generate realistic, high-detail images, 3D shape generation methods like Score Distillation Sampling (SDS) built on these 2D diffusion models produce cartoon-like, over-smoothed shapes. To help explain this discrepancy, we show that the image guidance used in Score Distillation can be understood as the velocity field of a 2D denoising generative process, up to the choice of a noise term. In particular, after a change of variables, SDS resembles a high-variance version of Denoising Diffusion Implicit Models (DDIM) with a differently-sampled noise term: SDS introduces noise i.i.d.