DanceOPD

On-Policy Generative Field Distillation

Wei Zhou, Xiongwei Zhu, Zelin Xu, Bo Dong, Lixue Gong, Yongyuan Liang,
Meng Chu, Leigang Qu, Lingdong Kong, Wei Liu, Tat-Seng Chua

A hard-routed, on-policy framework that distills multiple generative capability fields on student-visited states through simple local velocity matching.

Discover
Core idea

Treat every source capability as a velocity field, then learn where and how to query those fields on the student's own rollout.

Inspect route
Auto-cycling through the three routed fields
DanceOPD hard-routed on-policy field matching A sample is routed to one selected capability field, queried on a student rollout state, and trained by MSE field matching. Sample T2I Edit Style T2I Field Edit Field Style Field HardRoute SelectedField Off-policyStates Student Rollout(on-policy states) Semantic Query(low-noise,single query) vselected vstudent vselected vstudent vselected vstudent MSEfield matching Latent dim 1Latent dim 2 Selected field Unselected field Student rollout Semantic query(low-noise) Off-policy states Field velocity Student velocity
Animated method overview. DanceOPD uses hard routing to select one frozen capability field, queries it on a low-noise on-policy student state, and matches the selected velocity with a local velocity MSE loss.

Overview

Latest manuscript summary

Modern image generation demands a single model that unifies diverse capabilities, including text-to-image generation, local editing, and global editing. These abilities are rarely naturally aligned: editing can degrade T2I performance, while global and local editing can interfere with each other.

DanceOPD is an on-policy generative field distillation framework for flow-matching models. Each sample is routed to one frozen capability field, one low-noise student-induced state is queried, and the student is trained with a simple velocity MSE objective. The same formulation also absorbs operator-defined fields such as classifier-free guidance.

Interactive overviewT2I + Edit · Local + Global Edit · capability frontier

Native SVG bars and points. Hover, focus, or click any mark for its exact score.

DanceOPD overview chart manuscript fallback
Inspect the benchmarkSelect any method bar or capability-space point to compare exact scores.
5.347
GEditBench Avg in T2I + Edit Composition
0.849
GenEval Overall while preserving T2I
5.498
GEditBench Avg in Local + Global Edit Composition
5.833
Best CFG absorption diagnostic Avg

Challenge: capability synthesis is a field-query problem

Three query-induced alignment failures

Once each frozen source is viewed as a velocity field over the shared flow state space, capability synthesis depends on three choices: which field supervises a sample, where the field is queried, and how many states from a rollout are used.

1

Target-field ambiguity

Softly averaging several source fields can destroy the semantic identity of a capability query. The update may point to no real teacher behavior.

DanceOPD: hard-routed sample-wise field matching
2

State-distribution mismatch

Data states or teacher trajectories are off-policy for the student. They miss the states the deployed model actually visits at inference time.

DanceOPD: query on stop-gradient student rollout states
3

Trajectory-query correlation

Dense states from the same rollout share prompt, noise, dynamics, and history. More states can over-weight one correlated path.

DanceOPD: one low-noise semantic-side query
A

T2I + Edit Composition

Add editing ability while retaining text-to-image prompt following and visual quality.

B

Local + Global Edit Composition

Fuse preservation-heavy local editing with transformation-heavy global editing.

C

Realism / Style Absorption

Move the student toward a quality or style field while keeping base T2I behavior.

D

CFG Absorption

Internalize classifier-free guidance as an operator-defined velocity field.

Method: DanceOPD

Hard-routed semantic-side on-policy velocity matching

DanceOPD keeps each local target semantically well-defined, queries the target where the current student actually goes, and avoids dense correlated supervision. The full update is a local field-matching step on a stop-gradient rollout state.

1 · Route one sample

Keep one semantic target per sample instead of averaging teachers.

(x,c) m∼π vm
m ∼ π(m),   (x,c) ∼ Dm
um(z,t,c) = vm(z,t,c)
2 · Query on-policy

Ask the frozen field at a state from the current student rollout.

zT
z0:Tθ = Rollout(vθ; zT, c)
t = sg(ztθ)
3 · Match velocities

The selected field and student velocity meet in one local MSE.

vm vθ MSE field match
single low-noise query, K = 1
L = E || vθ(z̄t,t,c) − vm(z̄t,t,c) ||22
4 · Absorb operator fields

Classifier-free guidance is another velocity field to distill.

v vcond α vα
guided velocity field
vα = v + α(vcond − v)
A. Route one capability query

m ∼ π(m), (x,c) ∼ Dm

Each sample chooses exactly one frozen capability field. Unless stated otherwise, active capability buckets use a uniform route ratio.

B. Query on the student trajectory

z0:Tθ = Rollout(vθ; zT, c)

The target field is queried at sg(ztθ), exposing the teacher to student-visited states without backpropagating through the solver.

C. Use one semantic-side state

K = 1, low-noise query

Low-noise states concentrate edit, style, and visual-attribute signals; one query avoids within-rollout correlation.

Main results

Multi-capability synthesis under shared sources

The desired behavior is not a midpoint between specialists. A single student should strengthen the target capability while preserving the anchor capability under the same deployment model.

T2I + Edit

5.347 GEditBench / 0.849 GenEval

+8.1% over the best reproduced OPD baseline and +8.5% over the edit source on GEditBench.

Local + Global Edit

5.498 GEditBench / 0.848 GenEval

+16.1% over the best competing composition baseline and +7.9% over the local edit source.

MethodGEditBench Avg ↑GenEval Overall ↑Takeaway
Joint training4.6170.808Mixed supervision dilutes edit capability.
Weight merge-0.836Preserves T2I but collapses editing.
Off-policy distill.4.5280.818Teacher states leave a train–inference mismatch.
DiffusionOPD4.9470.833Improves editing but below DanceOPD.
Flow-OPD4.8540.814OPD baseline still suffers capability interference.
DanceOPD5.3470.849Best edit score and best GenEval in this block.
MethodGEditBench Avg ↑GenEval Overall ↑Takeaway
Joint training4.5460.821Conflict between preservation and transformation.
Weight merge4.7150.811Static parameter interpolation remains a compromise.
Off-policy distill.4.7360.798Target ability improves less and T2I drops.
DiffusionOPD4.6610.822Below DanceOPD on both metrics.
Flow-OPD4.6790.827Stable but not enough to fuse local/global behaviors.
DanceOPD5.4980.848Best capability synthesis in the harder conflict setting.
SourceGEditBench Avg ↑GenEval Overall ↑Role
T2I0.832Anchor generation field.
Edit4.9300.711General edit source.
Local Edit5.0950.793Preservation-heavy source.
Global Edit3.7500.808Transformation-heavy source.
Standalone overview

Capability synthesis across T2I and editing

DanceOPD preserves broad text-to-image quality while absorbing local, global, material, style, and scene editing capabilities.

DanceOPD capability synthesis overview across text-to-image generation and editing
Explore qualitative comparisonsOpen the sliding gallery →

Diagnostics and ablations

Why the design choices matter

The latest ablations show that failures are not simply about loss naming or training length. They trace back to query construction: ambiguous targets, off-policy states, and correlated dense trajectory samples.

Hard routing vs. soft fusion

5.751 hard-routed MSE vs. 4.994 soft-teacher MSE. Averaging all teachers erases capability identity.

Low-noise semantic query

At 2k steps, low-t reaches 5.751, above median-t 4.649 and high-t 4.813.

Single query beats dense queries

K=1 reaches 5.751; weighted K=4 drops to 5.330, and weighted K=16 drops to 5.127.

Moderate rollout discretization is enough

At 2k steps, 8/16/20/28 rollout steps stay in a practical band; 16 steps gives 5.751 / 0.858.

Plain MSE is stable

Velocity MSE reaches 5.751, outperforming timestep weighting, KL weighting, DMD-style, SDS-style, and consistency variants.

CFG absorption composes

Training α and inference β multiply approximately. Best measured composition is 5.833; over-guided αβ=49 drops to 4.015.

Interactive figure 01Field absorption · CFG composition · rollout steps

Hover or focus a point for its exact values. Click to keep a selection.

Field absorption and rollout diagnostics
Inspect the curvesMove across a line or select any point.
Interactive figure 02Query density · routing target · objective

Every bar is native SVG. Hover, focus, or click a bar to compare exact scores.

Routing, objective, and dense-query diagnostics
Inspect the barsSelect a training choice to compare its GEditBench-EN average.
Interactive figure 03Query timestep · initialization · trajectory queries

Points and lines are direct HTML/SVG controls, not a raster overlay.

Ablation trends
Inspect the ablationsHover or select any point to read its step and score.

Qualitative gallery

T2I, edit, local/global fusion, and training progression

The qualitative results follow the original manuscript-figure order. Each figure is now an independent prompt carousel with one method result per image cell.

Citation

@article{zhou2026danceopd,
  title={DanceOPD: On-Policy Generative Field Distillation},
  author={Zhou, Wei and Zhu, Xiongwei and Xu, Zelin and Dong, Bo and Gong, Lixue and Liang, Yongyuan and Chu, Meng and Qu, Leigang and Kong, Lingdong and Liu, Wei and others},
  journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27377},
  year={2026}
}
BibTeX copied