cs.CVJul 17, 2026

Spatial Transport of Integration Error in Generative ODEs

Authors: Songheng Yin

Organizations: Columbia University

Abstract

A trained flow or diffusion model is usually run with only a handful of solver steps, and the integration error this leaves behind is unevenly distributed across the image. We ask where that error is injected and how it reaches the endpoint, and answer with a signed source-and-transport accounting of few-step integration error, tested to first order. A perturbation experiment on five models at 256^2 resolution shows the learned dynamics spread local disturbances widely: near the start of sampling, under 10% of the summed endpoint response remains at the source. Signed one-step truncation residuals, propagated through the model's own linearized dynamics, reconstruct much of the endpoint error's direction and regional structure (cosine 0.81-0.87), and a region's error owes more to what arrives from elsewhere than to its own injection. Structure-destroying nulls, with protocols frozen before evaluation, locate what carries the account: randomizing contribution signs halves it, and reassigning which region receives each contribution, with content, norms, and signs intact, destroys it entirely. Where the injections land is readable from the model itself. The variation of its velocity or prediction field along the trajectory, a structure that emerges during training, predicts the final per-region gap (within-image rho of 0.57-0.70 on fine trajectories, weaker from the cheap solve alone). The prediction is partial because endpoint error depends not only on injected magnitude but on its sign, timing, and transport through the learned dynamics. A training penalty on the injected variation lowers few-step error, so the structure is one a model can be trained to change.

Explore similar work

Aug 1, 2026stat.ML

Round-Trip Consistency: Bidirectional Diffusion Models Can Predict Their Own Rollout Errors

Autoregressive models accumulate error over long rollouts, yet at deployment there is no ground truth to measure it against. We train a single conditional latent diffusion model that steps a dynamical system forward or backward in time via a direction flag, and show that this bidirectionality supplies a measurement-free test-time error signal: rolling forward ii steps and then backward ii steps must return the model to its start, so the round-trip discrepancy Ci\mathcal{C}_i is a self-supervised proxy for the unobservable rollout error: no ensembles, no held-out data, no governing equations, for one extra rollout. We validate on compressible magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), an astrophysical turbulent radiative mixing layer, and natural face videos (CelebV-HQ). On held-out MHD trajectories, Ci\mathcal{C}_i ranks rollout error (Spearman 0.910.91-0.980.98 at fixed depth; 0.69±0.160.69 \pm 0.16 within trajectories), and a simple calibrator fit on training rollouts predicts its magnitude to within 1.14×1.14\times (68%68\%) and 1.29×1.29\times (95%95\%) with near-nominal coverage - one nat beyond a depth-only predictor, transferring to all six decoded physical fields. The same signal flags the out-of-distribution Orszag-Tang vortex (AUROC 0.980.98; 1.01.0 by depth 1010) exactly where sampling-dispersion baselines invert, and it cuts incurred error by 15%15\% at 80%80\% coverage - three times the depth-only baseline. Bidirectional training comes at negative cost, beating direction specialists in both directions, and the backward direction doubles as a fast inverse solver. On LE-PDE-UQ's turbulent Navier-Stokes benchmark, a single bidirectional model reaches accuracy within 1.3×1.3\times of their ten-model ensemble at a tenth of the training cost, with the best training-free pixel-level calibration. Round-trip consistency turns reversibility into a practical trust signal for generative models.
Alexander Scheinker
May 5, 2026cs.LG

A Few-Step Generative Model on Cumulative Flow Maps

We propose a unified, few-step generative modeling framework based on \emph{cumulative flow maps} for long-range transport in probability space, inspired by flow-map techniques for physical transport and dynamics. At its core is a cumulative-flow abstraction that connects local, instantaneous updates with finite-time transport, enabling generative models to reason about global state transitions. This perspective yields a unified few-step framework built on cumulative transport and \revise{cumulative} parameterization that applies broadly to existing diffusion- and flow-based models without being tied to a specific prediction \revise{instantiation}. Our formulation supports few-step and even one-step generation while preserving synthesis quality, requiring only minimal changes to time embeddings and training objectives, and no increase in model capacity. We demonstrate its effectiveness across diverse tasks, including image generation, geometric distribution modeling, joint prediction, and SDF generation, with reduced inference cost.
Zhiqi Li, Duowen Chen, Yuchen Sun +1
Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

Flow Map Learning via Nongradient Vector Flow

Diffusion and flow-based models benefit from simple regression losses, but inference incurs significant overhead because sampling requires integration. Consistency models address this by directly learning the flow maps along the ODE trajectory, opening a design space between one-step and many-step approaches. However, existing methods face computational challenges such as requiring model inverses or backpropagation through iterated model calls, and do not always prove that the desired ODE flow map is a solution to the loss. We introduce SGFlow, an approach for learning flow maps that bypasses explicit invertibility constraints and expensive differentiation through model iteration. SGFlow trains a model to compute both the ODE solutions and the implied velocity from scratch by following non-conservative dynamics with a stationary point at the desired flow map. On the CIFAR image benchmark, no single method attains the best FID at every step count: SGFlow attains the best FID at 10 sampling steps and remains competitive with flow matching, Meanflow, and Lagrangian map matching at other step counts, while being the only one with a proven stationary-point guarantee for its stopgrad-based dynamics.
Mark Goldstein, Anshuk Uppal, Raghav Singhal +2