Dynamic Negative Guidance of Diffusion Models
Felix Koulischer, Johannes Deleu, Gabriel Raya, Thomas Demeester, Luca Ambrogioni

TL;DR
This paper introduces Dynamic Negative Guidance (DNG), a novel method for diffusion models that adapt guidance based on time and state, improving safety and image quality over traditional negative prompting.
Contribution
The paper proposes a principled, state-dependent modulation technique called DNG for diffusion models, enhancing control without extra training or significant computational cost.
Findings
DNG improves safety and class balance in MNIST and CIFAR10.
DNG yields higher image quality compared to baseline methods.
DNG provides more accurate guidance than traditional negative prompting.
Abstract
Negative Prompting (NP) is widely utilized in diffusion models, particularly in text-to-image applications, to prevent the generation of undesired features. In this paper, we show that conventional NP is limited by the assumption of a constant guidance scale, which may lead to highly suboptimal results, or even complete failure, due to the non-stationarity and state-dependence of the reverse process. Based on this analysis, we derive a principled technique called Dynamic Negative Guidance, which relies on a near-optimal time and state dependent modulation of the guidance without requiring additional training. Unlike NP, negative guidance requires estimating the posterior class probability during the denoising process, which is achieved with limited additional computational overhead by tracking the discrete Markov Chain during the generative process. We evaluate the performance of DNG…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Poster
1. By dynamically adjusting the intensity of negative prompts, DNG solves the problem that the traditional NP method may encounter suboptimal results or complete failures in the generation process. 2. The structure of the paper is clear and the content is well organized. 3. DNG combines the needs of diffusion model (DMs) and condition generation, and estimates the posterior probability by tracking discrete Markov chains in the generation process. This method is an innovative extension of the exi
1. Although the paper has been experimentally verified on MNIST and CIFAR10 datasets, the performance of DNG for more complex tasks (Text to image) has not been fully verified. 2. DNG is compared with NP and SLD methods in this paper, but the comparison of each method may lack in-depth analysis, especially the performance comparison under different parameter settings.
• The proposed method demonstrates promising results on MNIST and CIFAR10, outperforming standard negative prompting techniques and safe latent diffusion methods. This improvement suggests that the dynamic guidance approach offers a meaningful advantage in generating more accurate outputs for image datasets with complex features. • Preliminary results with Stable Diffusion also appear promising, indicating that the method may effectively enhance prompt accuracy within more sophisticated generat
• There is a lot of research happening in the field of negative prompting, yet this paper lacks a comprehensive comparison with many leading methods. An in-depth comparison would have more clearly illustrated the strengths and limitations of this approach relative to existing techniques, helping to clarify its unique contributions. • Overall, the evaluation of the proposed method lacks depth. A more thorough and systematic assessment across various scenarios and metrics would strengthen the va
A strength of the proposed method, DNG, is to estimate the posterior by tracking the discrete Markov chain during the denoising process. The strength of the guidance is dynamically related to how close the negative prompt is related to the positive prompt. This seems to a strength of the method since it can adaptively determine whether the negative prompt is even relevant at all. To the contrary, existing negative prompting methods may not be able to ignore irrelevant negative prompts. The propo
Writing can be better and consistent. For example, the paper has both c_- and c-, it should be consistent. The biggest weakness with the paper is the example images given at the end, starting from page 22. First, the pictures are so small, it is hard to appreciate the difference between NP results and DNG results. Second, I could be missing something, but it seems there is no big difference between the two types of results. In particular, it seems NP results are not bad or accidently include the
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical Biology Tumor Growth · Quantum chaos and dynamical systems · Control and Stability of Dynamical Systems
MethodsDiffusion
