Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Inconsistencies In Consistency Models: Better ODE Solving Does Not Imply Better Samples

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.08954 v2 pith:4DFWFHTR submitted 2024-11-13 cs.LG cs.AI

classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords errorsamplesconsistencydiffusionmodelmodelsbetterdirect
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Although diffusion models can generate remarkably high-quality samples, they are intrinsically bottlenecked by their expensive iterative sampling procedure. Consistency models (CMs) have recently emerged as a promising diffusion model distillation method, reducing the cost of sampling by generating high-fidelity samples in just a few iterations. Consistency model distillation aims to solve the probability flow ordinary differential equation (ODE) defined by an existing diffusion model. CMs are not directly trained to minimize error against an ODE solver, rather they use a more computationally tractable objective. As a way to study how effectively CMs solve the probability flow ODE, and the effect that any induced error has on the quality of generated samples, we introduce Direct CMs, which \textit{directly} minimize this error. Intriguingly, we find that Direct CMs reduce the ODE solving error compared to CMs but also result in significantly worse sample quality, calling into question why exactly CMs work well in the first place. Full code is available at: https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/direct-cms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools