Training-Free Hidden-State Refinement for Flow-Matching Image Generators

We aim to improve frozen flow-matching image generators by adding inference computation inside the denoiser, without changing model weights or the outer sampler. Existing generators usually spend extra test-time computation by increasing the number of sampling steps, which repeatedly evaluates the entire denoiser and couples quality gains to sampler cost. A key challenge is how to use extra computation inside a frozen transformer denoiser: the method must decide which tokens, layers, and sampling times receive repeated updates while preserving the original generation pipeline. We introduce a training-free looping framework that repeatedly applies selected transformer layers inside each denoising call. Dense and Sparse Token Loop vary the token scope; Sampling-Progress Gating and the loop layer range specify when and where looping is active; loop count and strength control the repeated updates; and Loop Guidance combines ordinary and looped vector-field predictions. Across two Scale-RAE model scales, loop variants improve primary and auxiliary quality metrics with competitive quality--efficiency trade-offs. Loop Guidance further improves both primary metrics across all three tested models; on Scale-RAE DiT2.4B, it raises GenEval from 0.4471 to 0.5691 and DPG-Bench from 0.7656 to 0.8053. Code will be released.

When Does LLM Orchestration Pay Off? A Controlled Evaluation of Accuracy, Cost, and Task Difficulty

LLM orchestration is often assumed to improve reasoning by allocating additional inference-time computation, yet its gains may not justify its cost. Existing comparisons also frequently overlook differences in optimization effort, making it difficult to isolate the value of orchestration itself. We conduct a controlled evaluation of Self-Refine, Best-of-$N$, and Debate against task-only and chain-of-thought (CoT) single-call baselines across five LLM backbones and three domains: competitive programming, chess puzzles, and mathematics. For comparability, we optimize each method with GEPA under the same optimization budget and evaluate all methods on the same difficulty-stratified benchmark items. Orchestration yields moderate but benchmark-dependent gains: averaged across backbones within each benchmark, the largest improvement is 4.6 percentage points over optimized CoT inference and 4.5 points over task-only inference, while requiring approximately 2 to 4 times the mean total tokens of task-only inference. Human-derived difficulty is associated with lower absolute accuracy in all three benchmarks, but within-benchmark analyses do not indicate that orchestration effects increase with task difficulty. By contrast, exploratory mixed-effects analyses reveal strong interactions between orchestration method and backbone model across all three benchmarks, showing that orchestration effectiveness depends substantially on the underlying model. Our results suggest that orchestration decisions should be model-specific and account for whether moderate accuracy gains justify the additional inference cost. More broadly, evaluations of LLM orchestrations should control optimization effort and report model-specific accuracy--cost trade-offs rather than treating additional inference-time structure as uniformly beneficial.