# Learned End-to-End Guidance Schedules for Diffusion Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.01502 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01502/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Diffusion foundations and sampling, one of 14 directions in Diffusion models.
- Builds on 2 of its 61 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- Diffusion models / [Diffusion foundations and sampling](https://mlsanity.com/diffusion/diffusion-foundations-and-sampling/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Constrained Synthesis with Projected Diffusion Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03559/) (2024)
- [Towards Aligned Layout Generation via Diffusion Model with Aesthetic Constraints](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04754/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Diffusion models are a powerful generative paradigm used across multimedia and scientific applications. Guided diffusion methods impose requirements on the generation by adding the gradient of a differentiable loss (the guidance function) as a drift term during inference. The weight of this drift (the guidance scale) is critical for the trade-off between data quality and requirement satisfaction. To achieve both of these goals, guided diffusion must resort to small guidance scales and lengthy sampling, incurring high computational costs. This work proposes learned end-to-end guidance schedules (LEEGS) to achieve these objectives with fewer sampling steps. LEEGS trains a time-dependent schedule by minimizing the guidance function over a small set of examples using stochastic gradient descent. Backpropagating through guided sampling is computationally expensive, so LEEGS uses an approximation of the gradient that cuts training time by a factor of 4. We evaluate LEEGS on diverse guidance tasks, including (a) image inpainting, (b) noisy image inverse problems, (c) face-ID-guided generation, and (d) forward and inverse PDE problems, outperforming baselines at equal budget (50 or 100 NFEs), or matching constant guidance with only 10% of the steps.