The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Bigger is not Always Better: Scaling Properties of Latent Diffusion Models
Open accessAbstract
We study the scaling properties of latent diffusion models (LDMs) with an emphasis on their sampling efficiency. While improved network architecture and inference algorithms have shown to effectively boost sampling efficiency of diffusion models, the role of model size -- a critical determinant of sampling efficiency -- has not been thoroughly examined. Through empirical analysis of established text-to-image diffusion models, we conduct an in-depth investigation into how model size influences sampling efficiency across varying sampling steps. Our findings unveil a surprising trend: when operating under a given inference budget, smaller models frequently outperform their larger equivalents in generating high-quality results. Moreover, we extend our study to demonstrate the generalizability of the these findings by applying various diffusion samplers, exploring diverse downstream tasks, evaluating post-distilled models, as well as comparing performance relative to training compute. These findings open up new pathways for the development of LDM scaling strategies which can be employed to enhance generative capabilities within limited inference budgets.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mei et al. show that smaller models can utilize more sampling steps during inference and thus perform better.
“Besides, Mei et al. [34] show that smaller models can utilize more sampling steps during inference and thus perform better.”
From Foundations of GenIR (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models
Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×
“The foundational works [3,18,21] for investigating their scaling behavior have shown the capability of predicting the performance from the model size.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ai, Q., Zhan, J., & Liu, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.02842
“Besides, Mei et al. [34] show that smaller models can utilize more sampling steps during inference and thus perform better.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Mei, K., Tu, Z., Delbracio, M., Talebi, H., Patel, V. M., & Milanfar, P.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.01367
- OpenAlex
- W4393924573
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- latent diffusion models, model scaling, sampling efficiency, text-to-image generation, diffusion samplers, knowledge distillation, generative models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review