TensorX
返回文献探索

Paper · arXiv 2411.08954

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

Noël Vouitsis, Rasa Hosseinzadeh, Brendan Leigh Ross, Valentin Villecroze, Satya Krishna Gorti, Jesse C. Cresswell, Gabriel Loaiza-Ganem

11 upvotesNovember 13, 2024arXiv 预印本
AI 摘要

Direct Consistency Models aim to reduce error in solving the probability flow ODE of diffusion models but surprisingly degrade sample quality compared to traditional Consistency Models.

diffusion modelsconsistency modelsprobability flow ordinary differential equationODE solversample quality

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 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.

北京市昌平区探索星信息技术及软件开发工作室

京ICP备2026059466号
Inconsistencies In Consistency Models: Better ODE Solving Does Not Imply Better Samples | TensorX