Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 20 references

One-Sided Quantile Coupling for Flow Matching

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A one-sided rank-based coupling straightens flow-matching training and cuts FID by up to 12.9%.

desk verdict One-sided quantile coupling for flow matching is a genuinely new, clearly explained idea with honest theory; the empirical wins are plausible but single-run, so treat the FID numbers with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.00978 v1 pith:LZY43TGC submitted 2026-08-02 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CV

Jin-Young Kim , So-Yoon Cho , Hyun-Gyoon Kim This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CV
keywords flowmatchingquantilecouplingone-sidedcomonotonetransportslicedprojectionsgenerativemodelingFIDsource–target
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Flow matching trains a generative model by teaching a network to reproduce the velocity of straight paths from a Gaussian source to data. The paper claims that the hard part—choosing which noise sample goes with which data point—can be done one-sidedly, without ever matching two batches. QC-FM ranks each data point's projections along $k$ random orthogonal directions, maps the within-batch ranks to Gaussian quantiles, and fills the remaining directions with Gaussian noise. For a fixed projection frame this removes the per-slice regression variance that no network could reduce, and it makes the ideal flow exactly straight along those slices. Under matched training budgets, QC-FM-Mixture improves FID by 6.3--12.9\% over the independent Baseline on CIFAR-10, CelebA, FFHQ, and ImageNet-64, and outperforms Hungarian OT-CFM on all four, at a per-batch cost of $O(B\log B)$ instead of a batchwise assignment.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-sided quantile coupling: a random orthonormal frame $U=[u_1,\dots,u_k]$ projects each data point; within-batch ranks per slice are mapped through the inverse Gaussian CDF to codes $z^{(i)}$, and the source is $U z^{(i)}$ plus independent Gaussian noise in the orthogonal complement. Along each slice this realizes the comonotone coupling between the projected data law and the standard Gaussian, which is what makes the per-slice velocity single-valued (zero irreducible variance) and the per-slice flow a straight $\mathrm{W}_2$-geodesic. The frame-averaged analysis adds the resampling term $D_t = \mathbb{E}\lVert \mathbb{E}[Y \mid x_t, U] - \mathbb{E}[Y \mid x_t]\rV

What would settle it

On a held-out CIFAR-10 batch at the paper's settings ($k=16$, $p=0.2$), compute $D_t = \mathbb{E}\lVert E[Y\mid x_t,U] - E[Y\mid x_t]\rVert^2$ by Monte Carlo over resampled frames. If $D_t$ is large relative to the per-frame slice variance it replaces, the fixed-frame variance-elimination theorem cannot explain the FID gains; if the FID gap between QC-FM and Baseline persists when $D_t$ is made negligible by conditioning the network on $U$, then the mechanism is the frame-averaged coupling rather than the per-frame one.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QC-FM pairs each data point $x^{(i)}$ with a source $e^{(i)} = U z^{(i)} + (I_d - U U^{\top})\varepsilon^{(i)}$, where $U$ is a random orthonormal frame, $z^{(i)}$ holds the Gaussian quantiles of the within-batch ranks of the projections $u_j^{\top} x^{(i)}$, and $\varepsilon^{(i)}$ is Gaussian noise in the complement. For a fixed frame this is the comonotone optimal transport along each slice: slice velocity is a deterministic function of the state, so irreducible regression variance vanishes along each selected slice, the ideal flow is exactly straight, and the slice marginal is generated exactly. The only deviation from the standard Gaussian prior is a $k$-dimensional dependence among sli

Load-bearing premise

The fixed-frame guarantees—zero slice variance and exactly straight slice flow—are assumed to survive actual training, where the projection frame is redrawn every step and the velocity network never observes it; the paper's own decomposition shows the frame-averaged objective contains an unmeasured nonnegative resampling term $D_t$, so the per-frame theory alone does not bound the trained model's loss or final FID.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Structured-coupling benefits no longer require solving a batch assignment: QC-FM's per-batch cost is $O(k B \log B + d k^2)$ plus $O(B d k)$ for projections, against $O(B^2 d + B^3)$ for exact Hungarian OT-CFM.
  • Because the source marginal is exactly Gaussian at $k=1$ and only mildly perturbed for $k\ge 2$, QC-FM is a drop-in change to existing flow-matching training loops: only the endpoint pairing changes.
  • The trade-off between slice count $k$ and source-prior mismatch is explicit and measurable: transport cost falls linearly in $k$ while the covariance defect grows like $k(k-1)\varrho$, explaining the paper's non-monotone $k$-ablation (FID improves from $k=1$ to $k=16$, degrades at $k=64$).
  • The Mixture hybrid retains the Baseline objective on a $1-p$ fraction of the batch, so it interpolates between independent coupling and full QC structure; the paper's anchor-ratio sweeps show the best mixture point depends on how the remainder is paired.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The one-sided construction suggests a natural online adaptive scheme: compute the debiased dependence statistic $\hat b_B$ during training and adjust $k$ on the fly, rather than calibrating $k$ per dataset before training.
  • Because QC-FM only needs projected order statistics, it should transfer to modalities where Euclidean distances are not meaningful—text, graphs, or audio—provided one can define a projection.
  • The per-slice straightness guarantee may make QC-FM a useful initialization for distillation or for flow models that aim to learn near-straight trajectories, since the learned map can concentrate its capacity on the inter-slice dependence rather than on path curvature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Quantile Coupling Flow Matching (QC-FM), a one-sided coupling for flow matching that constructs source samples by mapping within-batch data ranks along k random orthonormal projections to Gaussian quantiles and completing the remaining directions by conditional Gaussian sampling. The method avoids pairwise cost matrices and batchwise assignment, with an O(B log B) per-batch cost. The paper develops a population-level theory for the QC primitive: for a fixed frame, the irreducible regression variance vanishes along the selected slices and the ideal per-slice flow is straight; it also analyzes transport cost, direction resampling, finite-batch approximation, and the copula-type dependence among slice codes. For training, the paper introduces two hybrid variants, QC-FM-Mixture and QC-FM-Adjacency, which apply QC to an anchor subset and pair the Gaussian remainder differently. Experiments on CIFAR-10, CelebA-64, FFHQ-64, and ImageNet-64 report FID improvements over an independent Baseline and over Hungarian OT-CFM under matched budgets, with the Mixture variant reducing FID by 6.3–12.9% relative to Baseline.

Significance. If the theoretical claims are taken as scoped to the fixed-frame primitive, they are a clean and useful contribution: the per-frame variance decomposition and slice-straightness results are carefully stated and the proofs in Appendix A are coherent, and the explicit treatment of the frame-resampling gap (Proposition A.8) and finite-batch consistency is more honest than is typical in this area. The algorithmic idea is simple, efficient, and plausibly of practical interest as a lightweight alternative to mini-batch OT. However, the central empirical claim—that QC-FM-Mixture improves FID across four datasets—rests on single runs without error bars or multiple seeds, and the theory does not directly cover the frame-averaged, U-blind training setup used in the experiments. The paper explicitly acknowledges several of these limitations, which is a strength, but the gap between the per-frame theory and the deployed hybrid objective remains a load-bearing issue.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 2 and Section 'Image Generation Results'] The central empirical claim is supported only by single FID values with no error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple seeds. For example, QC-FM-Adjacency improves on CelebA by only 0.6% (1.76 vs 1.75) and OT-CFM on ImageNet is within 0.1% (8.80 vs 8.81); these differences could be within run-to-run noise. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three independent training runs (or equivalent uncertainty quantification) for all main FID comparisons, and state how many seeds Table 2 and Table 3 use. The toy diagnostics in Table 1 also report a single seed ('same seed'). Without this, the headline improvement over Baseline and OT-CFM is not statistically grounded.
  2. [Appendix A.8, Proposition A.8 and surrounding text] The theoretical guarantees (Theorem 2, Theorem A.4) are explicitly per-frame, but training redraws U every step and the network does not observe U. Proposition A.8 shows the frame-averaged irreducible variance equals the mean per-frame variance plus a nonnegative resampling term D_t, and the paper provides no practical upper bound on D_t for real data. The manuscript itself states that 'These results concern the QC primitive and do not bound the floor of the full hybrid coupling used in the experiments.' This is an important limitation: the theory does not establish that the U-blind training objective is better than Baseline, and the empirical FID gains are the sole support for that claim. Please either provide a usable bound or, at minimum, add an empirical diagnostic measuring D_t (e.g., the norm of the difference between per-frame ideal fields on real data) to quantify the magnitude o
  3. [Section 'Gaussian-Remainder Hybrid Extensions'] All image experiments use the hybrids, not the pure QC primitive, and for Mixture the population pair law is π_mix = p π_qc + (1-p) π_ind with p=0.2. This means the mixed objective is L_mix = p L_qc + (1-p) L_ind, so even a perfect per-frame QC floor leaves a (1-p) fraction of the Baseline floor in the hybrid objective. Proposition A.6 bounds only the source marginal, not the hybrid irreducible variance. The paper should state more prominently that Theorem 2 does not transfer to the hybrid objective, and discuss what the dilution implies for interpreting the FID gains as evidence for the QC mechanism rather than for the particular hybrid completion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 'Gaussian-Remainder Hybrid Extensions'] The text says 'the QC coupling above is the primitive analyzed in Section .' with a missing section number. Please fill in the reference.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2] Algorithm 1 takes an input batch {x(i)}_{i=1}^B, but in the hybrids it is called on the anchor subset Bx,anc of size M. This is clear from the prose but could be confusing in the pseudocode; consider adding a comment that B may be M in the hybrid call.
  3. [Appendix A.1 and throughout] The notation N(0, P_U^⊥) for the complement Gaussian is nonstandard; writing N(0, I_d - UU^T) or specifying that the covariance is the projection matrix would improve readability.
  4. [Appendix B] The calibrated heuristic Q(k) depends on ω fitted to CIFAR-10, and Table A transfers this to other datasets. This is a free parameter; the paper should explicitly state that the transferred k values are heuristic and that the FID gains could be sensitive to this calibration, even though the heuristic is data-driven.
  5. [Appendix C.5, Table D] Table D is referenced as 'Table D in Appendix C.5' and appears in the appendix; please ensure the in-text reference is to the correct appendix label (C.5 contains Table D, but C.5 is titled 'Batch-Size Ablation' while Table D is in the same section).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: theoretical guarantees are derived from stated assumptions and external classical results; empirical FID gains are measurements, not derived predictions.

full rationale

The core derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 2 and Theorem A.4 prove fixed-frame variance elimination and slice straightness directly from the construction e = Uz + P^⊥ ε with z_j = Φ^{-1}(F_j(u_j^T X)): the slice position is an invertible function of the code, so the slice velocity is σ(x_t)-measurable. Theorem A.3's transport-cost identity follows from the comonotone coupling and W2 expansion, using external classical results (Hoeffding/Villani/Sklar). The frame-resampling gap is explicitly handled in Proposition A.8, which adds a nonnegative D_t term and does not claim the per-frame guarantee transfers unchanged. Appendix B's Q(k) heuristic is explicitly calibrated to the CIFAR-10 k*=16 sweep and disclosed as a heuristic ('calibrated on data rather than derived'), and the main FID claims are measured outcomes, not predictions derived from that heuristic. The only self-citations (Kim et al. 2025, 2026) are contextual remarks, not load-bearing. The paper's own limitations (no variance-to-FID inequality; hybrid floor not bounded; D_t nonnegative) are stated, not hidden, and do not constitute circularity. No step reduces to its own input by construction; no fitted parameter is renamed a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no invented physical or latent entities beyond the algorithmic construction itself. The free parameters are the method's hyperparameters k, p, and the calibration weight omega used to select k; these are chosen or fitted from data. The axioms consist of standard mathematical results plus domain assumptions about flow matching and data regularity, with one ad hoc calibration assumption about the hyperparameter selection heuristic.

free parameters (3)
  • k (number of slices) = 16 for CIFAR-10, CelebA and ImageNet; 32 for FFHQ (from calibration and heuristic)
    Chosen from CIFAR-10 sweep ablated in Table 6a and Appendix B; then transferred without per-dataset tuning.
  • p (anchor ratio) = 0.2 for Mixture, 0.8 for Adjacency (transferred after CIFAR-10 sweep)
    Selected from the CIFAR-10 anchor-ratio sweep in Table 6b, then applied to all image datasets.
  • omega (calibration weight in Q(k)) = approximately 13.4
    Fixed in Appendix B by matching the observed CIFAR-10 optimum k* = 16; used to select k on other datasets.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Baseline flow matching uses a Gaussian source, linear path x_t = (1-t)x0 + t x1, and standard flow matching loss.
    Stated in the Preliminaries; all theory and experiments build on this formulation.
  • domain assumption Data slice CDFs are continuous and second moments are finite.
    Used in Theorem A.1 and Theorem A.3 for exact quantile mapping and transport cost identities; stated at the start of Appendix A.
  • domain assumption The flow/continuity equation is well-posed so that the induced flow map exists and transports the source to the data.
    Invoked in Theorem A.1(c) to connect the source marginal to the generated law.
  • domain assumption Within-batch projected values are distinct so that ranks are well defined and the finite-B source is an exact stratification.
    Assumed in Proposition A.11, where the batch codes form a permutation of the fixed Gaussian grid.
  • ad hoc to paper The calibrated heuristic Q(k) with omega fitted on CIFAR-10 remains a valid guide for k on other datasets.
    Appendix B: the heuristic is explicitly calibrated on data and its transferability is not proved; the paper relies on it for the reported FFHQ and ImageNet configurations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of One-Sided Quantile Coupling for Flow Matching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LZY43TGC

@misc{pith2026260800978,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: One-Sided Quantile Coupling for Flow Matching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LZY43TGC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.00978}
}
read the original abstract

Flow Matching trains continuous-time generative models by regressing the velocity field of a probability path between a simple source distribution and a target data distribution. The coupling that pairs source and target samples strongly affects optimization and sample quality, but structured couplings typically rely on mini-batch transport or assignment procedures whose cost grows at least quadratically in batch size. We propose Quantile Coupling Flow Matching (QC-FM), a lightweight one-sided coupling: rather than matching two pre-sampled batches, it samples only the data batch and constructs each paired source directly. Data ranks projected along a small number of random orthogonal directions are mapped to Gaussian quantiles, and the latent code is completed in the orthogonal complement by conditional Gaussian sampling. The construction is one-dimensional per slice, so the coupling requires no pairwise cost matrix and no assignment to solve. We show that, for each drawn frame, this coupling eliminates the irreducible regression variance along every selected slice and makes the ideal flow exactly straight there, while leaving the sampling prior unchanged: generation still starts from the standard Gaussian, and the training source deviates from it only through the copula of the slice codes, whose transport cost we bound. For training, we apply QC to an anchor subset and complete the remaining source slots with exact Gaussian samples, retaining the QC bias while preserving an explicit signal from the Baseline coupling. Across CIFAR-10, CelebA, FFHQ, and ImageNet-64, QC-FM improves over the Baseline under matched training budgets, reducing FID by up to 12.9%, and outperforms OT-CFM on all four datasets. These results suggest that preserving projected rank structure is a simple and scalable way to inject useful geometric bias into FM couplings without solving a mini-batch transport problem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.00978 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Learned flow trajectories on 8-Gaussians and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abramowitz,M.;andStegun,I.A.1948.Handbookofmath- ematicalfunctionswithformulas,graphs,andmathematical tables, volume

    work page 1948

  2. [2]

    The three terms are the projectionv ij =u ⊤ j xi, theksorts ofBvalues, and the one-off QR orthogonalization ofU, respectively

    time andO(Bd+dk)memory. The three terms are the projectionv ij =u ⊤ j xi, theksorts ofBvalues, and the one-off QR orthogonalization ofU, respectively. For fixeddandkthis reduces toO(BlogB), dominated by the sorts: the projection term is linear inBand the orthogonalization term is independent ofB. Proof.TheBkprojectionsv ij =u ⊤ j xi costO(Bdk); theksorts ...

    work page 1940

  3. [6]

    Quantile-Coupled Flow Matching for Distributional Reinforcement Learning

    Quantile-Coupled Flow Matching for Distributional Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.08515. Helbling, A.; Gutierrez Hernandez, S.; Hoover, B.; Chau, D.H.;andRam,P.2026. WhatTimeIsIt?HowDataGeom- etryMakesTimeConditioningOptionalforFlowMatching. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.08344. Hoeffding,W.1940. MaßstabinvarianteKorrelationstheorie. Schriften...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  4. [7]

    InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 37992–38003

    Understanding, Accelerating, and Improving Mean- Flow Training. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 37992–38003. Kim,J.-Y.;Go,H.;Kwon,S.;andKim,H.-G.2025. Denois- ing Task Difficulty-based Curriculum for Training Diffusion Models. InInternationalConferenceonLearningRepresen- tations. Kolouri, S.; N...

    work page 2025

  5. [8]

    arXiv:2412.06264

    Flow Matching Guide and Code. arXiv:2412.06264. Liu,X.;Gong,C.;andLiu,Q.2023. FlowStraightandFast: LearningtoGenerateandTransferDatawithRectifiedFlow. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Liu,Z.;Luo,P.;Wang,X.;andTang,X.2015.DeepLearning Face Attributes in the Wild. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer V...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [11]

    Tong, A.; Fatras, K.; Malkin, N.; Huguet, G.; Zhang, Y.; Rector-Brooks,J.;Wolf,G.;andBengio,Y.2024

    Sliced optimal transport plans.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01243. Tong, A.; Fatras, K.; Malkin, N.; Huguet, G.; Zhang, Y.; Rector-Brooks,J.;Wolf,G.;andBengio,Y.2024. Improving andGeneralizingFlow-BasedGenerativeModelswithMini- batchOptimalTransport.TransactionsonMachineLearning Research (TMLR). Villani,C.2009.OptimalTransport:OldandNew. Springer. Zhang, S. ...

    arXiv 2024

  7. [13]

    for somec≥0; both sides are left-continuous andΦ−1 is continuous, so this holds for everyτ, i.e.u#p1 =N(µ u, c2)is Gaussian, and thenc=σ u andC u =σ u

    Equality in Cauchy–Schwarz forces the two factors to be proportional,F −1 −µ u =cΦ −1 Lebesgue-a.e. for somec≥0; both sides are left-continuous andΦ−1 is continuous, so this holds for everyτ, i.e.u#p1 =N(µ u, c2)is Gaussian, and thenc=σ u andC u =σ u. Proof of (a).The identityF −1(F(v)) =vholds except on the interiors of the countably many flat intervals ...

    work page 2023

  8. [14]

    and the complement part is at most that of the Baseline (Step 3), so for everyt, F πqc k,U t =F πqc k,U t (⊥)≤ Fπind t (⊥) =F πind t − kX j=1 F πind t (uj). Integrating againstq(t)dtand usinginf v Lπ FM = R 1 0 q(t)F π t dtgives the displayed bound, inf v L πqc k,U FM ≤inf v Lπind FM − kX j=1 Z 1 0 q(t)F πind t (uj)dt, and the subtracted sum is strictly p...

    work page 2009

Show all 20 references
  1. [15]

    Proof. (a).The transport cost is linear in the coupling,c(π) = R ∥x1 −x 0∥2 dπ, so for the averaged coupling¯π=EU [πqc k,U ], exchanging the frame average with the transport integral by Fubini gives c(¯π) =EU [c(πqc k,U )] =E U h R2 +d−2 X j Cuj i =R 2 +d−k R2 d + 1−SW 2 2 (p1...

    1990

  2. [16]

    Writes ⋆ := (1−t) +tσands 2 ⊥ := (1−t) 2 +t 2σ2 for the in-slice and complement interpolation scales, and set∆ :=s−2 ⊥ −s −2 ⋆ andλ:= ∆ 2 ∥xt∥2

    Proposition A.10(Isotropic direction-mixture price).For the special case of isotropic Gaussian datap1 =N(0, σ2Id)with σ̸= 1, letUbe a Haar frame of rankk≤dand take linear paths. Writes ⋆ := (1−t) +tσands 2 ⊥ := (1−t) 2 +t 2σ2 for the in-slice and complement interpolation scale...

    1948

  3. [17]

    (a).The grid cdf ˆGB jumps by1/Bat eachg r = Φ−1 r−1/2 B

    Proof. (a).The grid cdf ˆGB jumps by1/Bat eachg r = Φ−1 r−1/2 B . On the open interval(gr, gr+1), ˆGB ≡r/BwhileΦ increases continuously fromr−1/2 B to r+1/2 B . The deviation|ˆGB −Φ|is therefore largest at the interval’s endpoints, where it equals exactly 1 2B, and the same va...

    1948

  4. [19]

    This is the classical variance of a simple linear rank statistic (Hoeffding 1951), specialized to the scoresgm

    Expanding the square ofP m gmgτ(m) with these moments, Var X m gmgτ(m) =s B X m g2 m − sB B−1 X m̸=m′ gmgm′ =Bs 2 B + sB B−1 ·Bs B = (BsB)2 B−1 , (39) where the second equality usesP m̸=m′ gmgm′ = P m gm 2 − P m g2 m =−Bs B. This is the classical variance of a simple linear ra...

    1951

  5. [64]

    The anti-monotone control degrades FID to2.41, worse than both the Baseline (2.24) and the monotone construction (2.10), despite using the same Gaussian quantile grid

    Table C compares it with the Baseline and the monotone variant. The anti-monotone control degrades FID to2.41, worse than both the Baseline (2.24) and the monotone construction (2.10), despite using the same Gaussian quantile grid. This supports that the gain comes from preser...

    2026

  6. [1997]

    Mousavi-Hosseini, A.; Zhang, S

    A Convexity Principle for Interacting Gases.Advances in Mathematics, 128(1): 153–179. Mousavi-Hosseini, A.; Zhang, S. Y.; Klein, M.; and Cuturi, M.2025.FlowMatchingwithSemidiscreteCouplings.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25519. Nelsen, R. B. 2006.An Introduction to Copulas. Springe...

    2025

  7. [2009]

    InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 248–255

    ImageNet: A Large-Scale Hierarchical Image Database. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, 248–255. Fatras, K.; Zine, Y.; Flamary, R.; Gribonval, R.; and Courty, N.2020. LearningwithMinibatchWasserstein:Asymptotic and Gradient Prope...

    2020

  8. [2019]

    Only the rate is used below

    for systematic one-dimensionalW2 estimates of this kind. Only the rate is used below. (b).Fixaslicej,let ˆFB,j betheempiricalcdfoftheprojectionsv 1j, . . . , vBj,andsetτ ij :=F j(vij)andˆτij := ˆFB,j (vij)− 1 2B, sothatZ ij = Φ−1(τij)andz ij = Φ−1(ˆτij).Writeδ B :=∥ ˆFB,j −F j...

    2009

  9. [2023]

    InInternational Conference on Machine Learn- ing (ICML)

    Multi- sampleFlowMatching:StraighteningFlowswithMinibatch Couplings. InInternational Conference on Machine Learn- ing (ICML). Rabin,J.;Peyré,G.;Delon,J.;andBernot,M.2011. Wasser- stein Barycenter and Its Application to Texture Mixing. In Scale Space and Variational Methods in ...

    2011

  10. [2024]

    InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML)

    Stochastic Interpolants with Data-Dependent Couplings. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). Albergo,M.S.;andVanden-Eijnden,E.2023. BuildingNor- malizingFlowswithStochasticInterpolants.InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR). Bobkov, S.; ...

    2023

  11. [2025]

    Albergo, M

    Stochastic Interpolants: A Unifying Framework for Flows and Diffusions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08797. Albergo, M. S.; Goldstein, M.; Boffi, N. M.; Ranganath, R.; and Vanden-Eijnden, E

    arXiv

  12. [2026]

    Bonneel,N.;Rabin,J.;Peyré,G.;andPfister,H.2015

    Expected Batch OptimalTransportPlansandConsequencesforFlowMatch- ing.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.12174. Bonneel,N.;Rabin,J.;Peyré,G.;andPfister,H.2015. Sliced and Radon Wasserstein Barycenters of Measures.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 51(1): 22–45. Chapel,L.;Tavena...

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.