Diffusion and flow matching models generate high-fidelity data by simulating paths defined by Ordinary or Stochastic Differential Equations (ODEs/SDEs), starting from a tractable prior distribution. The probability flow ODE formulation enables the use of advanced numerical solvers to accelerate sampling. Orthogonal yet vital to solver design is the discretization strategy. While early approaches employed handcrafted heuristics and recent methods adopt optimization-based techniques, most existing strategies enforce a globally shared timestep schedule across all samples. This uniform treatment fails to account for instance-specific complexity in the generative process, potentially limiting performance. Motivated by controlled experiments on synthetic data, which reveals the suboptimality of global schedules under instance-specific dynamics, we propose an instance-aware discretization framework. Our method learns to adapt timestep allocations based on input-dependent priors, extending gradient-based discretization search to the conditional generative setting. Empirical results across diverse settings, including synthetic data, pixel-space diffusion, latent-space images and video flow matching models, demonstrate that our method consistently improves generation quality with marginal tuning cost compared to training and negligible inference overhead.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Our effective instance-aware discretization improves sampling quality, by generating a tailored discretization ξϕ for each initial noise xT and condition c , outperforming heuristic and globally optimized schedules. Orange contour represents the ground truth data distribution, blue dots represent the generated samples across different discretizations. ( Ψ(⋅,⋅,⋅) represents the ODE path.)
Figure 2: Comparison of endpoint(accumulated) errors for different timestep strategies (NFE=3). Each point is an initial noise sample xT∼N(0,σT2I) , colored by L2 error relative to 100-step euler as the ground truth. Methods: (a) Uniform timesteps. (b) Globally optimized timesteps. (c) Instance-specific timesteps (overfitted). (d) Instance-specific timesteps (learned through network ϕ ).
Figure 3: Quantitative comparison on synthetic experiments, evaluating MSE to teacher samples, KL divergence, and Wasserstein distance across various NFEs(log-scale). Methods include: uniform heuristics, globally optimized timesteps, and our proposed instance-level optimized timesteps conditioned on prior sample.
Figure 4: Architectural design of the proposed lightweight prior conditioning network. When conditional information is available, class indices are first scaled by a factor of label_dim1 and then processed through a linear layer. For prompt embeddings (FLUX.1-dev), T5 embeddings undergo mean pooling to reduce dimensionality before being concatenated with CLIP embeddings.
CIFAR10 32 × 32
FFHQ 64 × 64
AFHQv2 64 × 64
ImageNet 64 × 64
Method
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
Best Heu.
57.39
17.35
7.61
72.29
17.52
8.76
40.24
9.01
4.73
44.93
15.53
8.64
DMN
77.69
12.93
5.42
178.09
20.93
10.17
178.76
26.11
13.03
33.72
10.47
5.39
AMED
18.49
7.59
4.36
26.87
12.49
6.64
31.82
7.34
4.39
28.06
10.74
6.66
GITS
25.98
6.77
3.43
26.41
8.85
5.36
24.17
8.72
5.48
26.41
9.85
6.44
LD3
16.52
5.32
3.37
23.86
8.56
4.69
17.94
6.09
2.77
27.82
11.55
5.63
Table 1: FID Comparison for pixel-space DPMs on CIFAR10, FFHQ, AFHQv2 and class conditional ImageNet64, reporting for NFE=3, 5, and 7. Best Heu. represent the best heuristics schedule among uniform, logSNR and polynomial schedules. The complete results are provided in the appendix.
Figure 5: Ablation study on FFHQ, LSUN-Bedroom and FLUX.1-dev, instance condition is observed to be the most contributing factor, while the effect of shifted factors varies across pretrained models.
Method
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
best heu.
41.99
6.38
4.39
DMN
28.11
6.15
5.16
AMED
58.21
13.20
7.00
GITS
44.78
17.29
9.59
LD3
14.62
5.93
4.31
INDIS
12.44
4.99
3.81
Table 2: FID on latent space LSUN 256x256.
Figure 6: Qualitative Results on FlUX.1-dev (NFE=7) of our instance-level INDIS method, compared with Global Heuristics (RDS) and globally optimized discretization (GOD). Corresponding prompts could be referred in the appendix.
CIFAR10 (pixel-space)
LSUN 256 × 256 (latent-space)
Method
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
EPD
10.40
4.33
2.82
13.21
7.52
5.97
AdaSDE
12.62
4.18
2.88
18.03
6.96
5.16
INDIS
9.26
3.31
2.60
12.44
4.99
3.81
Table 3: Comparison with solver distillation on FID.
Metrics
Method
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
FID ( ↓ )
RDS
64.50
30.12
22.58
GOD
56.82
28.52
22.77
INDIS
44.35
24.89
22.70
CLIP ( ↑ )
RDS
23.29
29.66
30.76
GOD
24.41
29.70
30.80
INDIS
26.33
30.01
30.86
Table 4: Performance comparison on FLUX.1-dev (NFE=3, 5, 7).
Method
Aes. Quality
Imaging Quality
Subject Consis.
RDS
0.579
0.597
0.963
GOD
0.583
0.603
0.963
INDIS
0.593
0.613
0.964
Table 5: Performance comparison on LTX-Video (NFE=5).
Figure 7: Visualization of instance-level discretizations on FLUX.
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Steps
MSE ↓
KL Divergence ↓
Wasserstein ↓
Uniform
Global
Instance
Uniform
Global
Instance
Uniform
Global
Instance
3
0.0588
0.0245
0.0158
5.1574
1.4452
0.6091
0.2284
0.1466
0.0925
4
0.0213
0.0223
0.0115
1.1362
1.3032
0.6065
0.1361
0.1403
0.0872
5
0.0238
0.0122
0.0093
1.2130
0.5819
0.3463
0.1496
0.1039
0.0771
6
0.0147
0.0094
0.0076
0.6775
0.3521
0.2434
0.1139
0.0869
0.0716
7
0.0121
0.0072
0.0066
0.4180
0.2246
0.2194
0.1038
0.0787
0.0722
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison of different timestep scheduling strategies across MSE, KL divergence, and Wasserstein distance under varying step numbers.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of sampling trajectories: Ground Truth ( gray , 100 NFE), Globally Optimized Timesteps ( green ), and Instance-Specific Timesteps ( purple ). Orange coutour represents the data manifold.
Figure 9: Architectural design of the proposed lightweight prior conditioning network. When conditional information is available, class indices are first scaled by a factor of label_dim1 and then processed through a linear layer. For prompt embeddings (FLUX.1-dev), T5 embeddings undergo mean pooling to reduce dimensionality before being concatenated with CLIP embeddings.
Hyperparameter
CIFAR10
FFHQ
AFHQv2
ImageNet64
LSUN
FLUX.1-dev
LTX-Video
Learning Rate
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.001
0.001
Batch Size
16
16
16
8
4
4
4
GPUs (A100)
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Nimgs/videos
10k
10k
10k
10k
10k
10k
5k
bγ
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
bΔτ
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
Appendix
Table 7: Hyperparameter settings.
Models
Training Time
Sampling Overhead (%)
Parameter Overhead (%)
CIFAR10 ( 32×32 )
8 min
2.5%
0.43%
ImageNet64 ( 64×64 )
40 min
1.9%
0.32%
FLUX.1-dev ( 512×512 )
8 h †
2.3%
0.21%
Appendix
Table 8: Efficiency Analysis. † : for FLUX.1-dev, we train ϕ for 2 hours on 4 A100 GPUs with a batch size of 4.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison against teacher and global baseline.
NFE
Ablation (on CIFAR-10)
3
4
5
6
7
8
w/o instance level
12.05
14.44
5.36
3.83
3.84
3.20
w/o shifted factors
11.12
8.35
4.64
3.30
2.92
3.24
w/o SVD
9.60
4.31
3.27
2.65
2.77
2.62
full
9.26
4.14
3.31
2.81
2.60
2.34
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation study on the components of our method. Metrics are FID ↓ .
NFE
Solver choices
3
4
5
6
7
8
Uni_PC
68.25
43.92
24.01
13.12
6.63
4.41
Uni_PC (+INDIS)
10.88
5.88
3.84
3.57
2.59
2.48
DPM-solver++
68.43
46.59
24.99
12.16
6.88
4.62
DPM-solver++ (+INDIS)
9.92
6.52
4.62
3.55
3.17
2.92
iPNDM
57.39
29.78
17.35
9.95
7.61
5.41
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation study on different solver choices, with and without our method (INDIS), on CIFAR-10.
Teacher NFEs.
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11.57
8.34
5.52
4.01
4.45
3.38
20
9.73
6.59
3.48
3.11
2.81
2.55
30
9.26
4.14
3.31
2.81
2.60
2.34
Appendix
Table 11: Ablations on teacher solver steps.
Table 22
CIFAR10 32 × 32
FFHQ 64 × 64
ImageNet64 (class-cond.)
LSUN 256 × 256 (latent)
Method
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
NFE=3
NFE=5
NFE=7
EPD
10.40
4.33
2.82
21.74
7.84
4.81
18.28
6.35
5.26
13.21
7.52
5.97
AdaSDE
12.62
4.18
2.88
23.80
8.05
5.11
18.51
6.90
5.26
18.03
6.96
5.16
INDIS
9.26
3.31
2.60
17.72
6.91
3.90
18.96
7.28
4.94
12.44
4.99
3.81
Appendix
Table 16: Comparison with solver distillation. FID at NFE=3,5,7 on CIFAR10, FFHQ, class-conditional ImageNet64, and LSUN 256 × 256 (latent-space).
Method
NFE=3
NFE=4
NFE=5
NFE=6
NFE=7
NFE=8
best heu.
41.99
11.93
6.38
5.08
4.39
4.88
DMN
28.11
11.82
6.15
4.71
5.16
4.55
AMED
58.21
15.67
13.20
8.92
7.00
4.19
GITS
44.78
21.67
17.29
11.52
9.59
8.82
LD3
14.62
8.48
5.93
4.52
4.31
4.22
INDIS
12.44
6.55
4.99
3.84
3.81
3.66
Appendix
Table 17: FID results on LSUN-Bedroom.
Metrics
Method
NFE=3
NFE=4
NFE=5
NFE=6
NFE=7
FID( ↓ )
RDS
64.50
30.36
30.12
23.16
22.58
GOD
56.82
29.33
28.52
23.32
22.77
INDIS
44.35
26.07
24.89
22.93
22.70
CLIP( ↑ )
RDS
23.29
27.77
29.66
30.42
30.76
GOD
24.41
28.24
29.70
30.55
30.80
INDIS
26.33
28.70
30.01
30.67
30.86
Appendix
Table 18: Full comparison on FLUX.1-dev(MS-COCO). For each column, we bold the best performing method. We found AFS to be negative on this large scale pretrained model, thus reporting the result w/o AFS.
Prompt set
Method
Aes.
Img.
Subj.
PAS
TCS
CAS
VBench
RDS
0.579
0.597
0.963
2.162
95.643
49.615
GOD
0.583
0.603
0.963
3.155
96.672
49.776
INDIS
0.593
0.613
0.964
3.368
98.337
49.852
VMBench
RDS
0.552
0.601
0.955
2.956
96.053
48.981
GOD
0.561
0.607
0.956
3.220
96.892
49.693
INDIS
0.583
0.611
0.961
3.347
97.187
50.138
Appendix
Table 19: Performance on VBench and VMBench prompt subsets.
Figure 11: Qualitative Comparison (NFE=5) between global heuristics, global optimized and instance level INDIS methods (1/2) on LTX-Video
Figure 12: Qualitative Comparison (NFE=5) between global heuristics, global optimized and instance level INDIS methods (2/2) on LTX-Video
Figure 13: Qualitative Comparison (NFE=7) between global heuristics, global optimized and instance level INDIS methods (1/2) on FLUX.1-dev
Figure 14: Qualitative Comparison (NFE=7) between global heuristics, global optimized and instance level INDIS methods (2/2) on FLUX.1-dev
Figure 15: Qualitative comparison on FFHQ64x64 datasets with NFE=3 settings.
Figure 16: Qualitative comparison on AFHQv2 64x64 datasets with NFE=3 settings.
Figure 17: Qualitative comparison on ImageNet 64x64 datasets with NFE=3 settings.
Figure 18: Qualitative comparison on CIFAR10 32x32 datasets with NFE=3 settings.
Figure 19: Qualitative comparison on latent space LSUN-Bedroom 256x256 datasets with NFE=3 settings.
Figure 20: Qualitative comparison on latent space LSUN-Bedroom 256x256 datasets with NFE=4 settings.
Diffusion-based generative models have achieved remarkable performance across various domains, yet their practical deployment is often limited by high sampling costs. While prior work focuses on training objectives or individual solvers, the broader sampling design problem, specifically solver selection and scheduling, remains largely governed by static heuristics. We propose SDM, a principled, training-free sampling framework that adapts both the numerical solver and the timestep schedule to the intrinsic properties of the diffusion trajectory. By analyzing the PF-ODE dynamics, we show that velocity variation is small in high-noise stages and increases near the data manifold, identifying intervals where solver order is most consequential. In parallel, we introduce an offline-calibrated adaptive scheduling method that explicitly controls the local Wasserstein discretization error and projects the calibrated trajectory to a prescribed NFE budget. We further extend the formulation to a mixed-transition Wasserstein error bound, providing a unified error-propagation view of adaptive scheduling and solver selection within the overall SDM framework. Across standard benchmarks, with extensions to modern ODE samplers, high-resolution synthesis, and text-to-image generation, SDM achieves improved sample quality compared to baseline methods, attaining an FID of 1.93 on CIFAR-10, 2.41 on FFHQ, and 1.98 on AFHQv2, with a reduced number of function evaluations compared to existing samplers. Our code is available at https://github.com/aiimaginglab/sdm.
Sangwoo Jo, Sungjoon Choi
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University, Seoul, South Korea.
Flow matching has emerged as a scalable paradigm for training high-quality generative models, but sampling from the learned probability flow requires many network evaluations. Distillation can reduce this cost to one or a few evaluations; however, one-step generation often sacrifices quality, making few-step generation the practical operating regime. Existing few-step methods perform their iterative computation along the probability flow and therefore require a fixed, manually chosen timestep discretization. This discretization is often chosen heuristically and is expensive to tune; it may also be restrictive when refinement difficulty differs across samples or spatial locations. We introduce data-space iteration, a few-step generation framework that removes flow discretization altogether. Starting from noise, a shared generator directly refines its prediction in data space, with every iteration trained to produce the best sample permitted by its capacity. Our formulation integrates with distribution matching distillation (DMD) with minimal changes, enabling a controlled comparison between iteration methods under matched training settings. On class-conditional ImageNet 256x256, data-space iteration outperforms standard discretization baselines and matches or improves upon variants selected through schedule search, without requiring schedule-specific training. These results show that data-space iteration provides a simple and effective alternative to discretized flow-space iteration for fast generation.
Flow matching models generate samples by numerically integrating a learned velocity field, with each integration step requiring a neural network evaluation. Fast generation therefore requires using a small fixed evaluation budget effectively: the key question is not only how to integrate the flow, but where the sampler should spend its steps. We propose SharpEuler, a training-free sampler that profiles a pretrained model offline by estimating where the learned velocity field changes most rapidly along calibration trajectories. This finite-difference estimate defines a solver-aware sharpness profile, which is smoothed and converted by a quantile transform into a timestep grid for any desired inference budget. At test time, sampling remains ordinary Euler integration with the same number of model evaluations as a uniform schedule. We justify SharpEuler using three principles: a numerical principle identifying trajectory acceleration as the leading source of Euler discretization error, a variational principle deriving sharpness-based power-law timestep densities, and a statistical guarantee showing that the finite-sample calibrated sampler is stable at the terminal distribution level. Our experiments show that SharpEuler improves sample quality at fixed budgets, reducing inter-mode leakage and increasing mode coverage.
Aditi Gupta, Soon Hoe Lim, Annan Yu +1
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · International Computer Science Institute · 1Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2International Computer Science Institute +4