Tilt Matching for Scalable Sampling and Fine-Tuning
Peter Potaptchik, Cheuk-Kit Lee, and Michael S. Albergo

TL;DR
This paper introduces Tilt Matching, a scalable algorithm for sampling and fine-tuning generative models using stochastic interpolants, which improves efficiency and reduces variance without needing reward gradients.
Contribution
The paper presents Tilt Matching, a novel velocity-based method derived from stochastic optimal control that enhances sampling and fine-tuning of generative models with lower variance and no gradient access.
Findings
Achieves state-of-the-art sampling results on Lennard-Jones potentials.
Demonstrates competitive fine-tuning performance on Stable Diffusion.
Proves the method's scalability and efficiency in various generative tasks.
Abstract
We propose a simple, scalable algorithm for using stochastic interpolants to sample from unnormalized densities and for fine-tuning generative models. The approach, Tilt Matching, arises from a dynamical equation relating the flow matching velocity to one targeting the same distribution tilted by a reward, implicitly solving a stochastic optimal control problem. The new velocity inherits the regularity of stochastic interpolant transports while also being the minimizer of an objective with strictly lower variance than flow matching itself. The update to the velocity field can be interpreted as the sum of all joint cumulants of the stochastic interpolant and copies of the reward, and to first order is their covariance. The algorithms do not require any access to gradients of the reward or backpropagating through trajectories of the flow or diffusion. We empirically verify that the…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2026
- Writing: I found the writing to be easy to follow, though the work assumes familiarity with a lot of background material. - Theoretical Insights: The derivation of the Covariance ODE is very interesting and the connection to the Esscher transform is quite insightful as well. - Promise of practical Advantages: Proposed ETM/ITM hold the promise to solve key problems with existing methods: 1) avoid backprop through trajectories, 2) avoid reward gradients, and 3) lower variance than WTM. The empir
- Disconnect between theory and empirical validation: Paper offers ITM as a superior alternative to ETM. However, ETM seems to outperform ITM on the tested small scale configuration for sampling as well as in term of stability for finetuning (no ITM results are reported due to it’s instability in finetuning experiments). Given that the paper spends a significant amount of space motivating and deriving the ITM variant, I find the empirical validation preliminary and lacking. Trusting Table-1, I a
- 1 - The paper is overall well written and easy to follow. - 2 - The proposed approach is to my knowledge entirely novel and the numerical experiments are limited but encouraging.
- 3 - The method requires retraining iteratively to a satisfactory accuracy as the training objective at tilt a+h leverages samples from the model at tilt a: This entails a rather important computational budget and the methods proposed by the authors to “refresh” the model to circumvent this issue are not entirely clear. - 4 - The second main limitation of the paper is the limited numerical evaluation of the proposed approach as no systematic studies are conducted: - On the effect of the disc
There are two main streams for obtaining the posterior distribution from the prior and the reward function. AM like approach requires the reward to be differentiable while other approaches do not. The latter approaches typically fall into the importance sampling land which is traditionally be known for having poor sample efficiency like iDEM. The proposed approach improved the sample efficiency compared to other importance sampling baselines which offer an alternative approach when dealing wit
While the paper’s theoretical perspective is sound, the empirical results are less compelling than expected. Table 1 reports higher ESS than iDEM and substantially better performance, but a strong baseline, ASBS is not included. Assuming comparable experimental settings, ASBS achieves better results on the more complex energy function (LJ-55), which raises questions about the scalability of the proposed approach. For Table 2: if you followed the same experimental setup as Domingo-Enrich et al.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMarkov Chains and Monte Carlo Methods · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · Model Reduction and Neural Networks
