pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.16079 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 💻 cs.CV

Recognition: unknown

The Amazing Stability of Flow Matching

Rania Briq , Michael Kamp , Ohad Fried , Sarel Cohen , Stefan Kesselheim
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords flow matchinggenerative modelsdataset pruningstabilityCelebA-HQlatent representationsimage generationrobustness
0
0 comments X

The pith

Flow matching models preserve sample quality and diversity after randomly pruning half the training images.

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

The paper tests how sensitive flow matching is to changes in training data size, model architecture, and configuration. On the CelebA-HQ face dataset, randomly removing 50 percent of the images leaves the quality and diversity of generated samples essentially unchanged according to standard metrics. The same random seeds also produce visually similar outputs from models trained on the full versus pruned data, showing that the learned latent mapping shifts only slightly. This pattern of stability repeats when the architecture or training setup is altered instead.

Core claim

Flow-matching models exhibit strong stability in practice: pruning 50% of the CelebA-HQ dataset preserves the quality and diversity of generated samples, while samples generated by models trained on the full and pruned dataset map to visually similar outputs for a given seed. Similar stability holds when the architecture or training configuration is changed, maintaining the latent representation under these perturbations as well.

What carries the argument

Flow matching, the continuous-time generative process that learns a velocity field to map noise to data, which in the experiments maintains consistent output distributions and latent mappings despite large reductions in training data or architectural shifts.

Load-bearing premise

Random pruning of half the CelebA-HQ images leaves the underlying data distribution close enough to the original that quality and diversity metrics still apply, and visual similarity of outputs for fixed seeds is enough to show the latent representation has been preserved.

What would settle it

A substantial drop in FID or other quality/diversity metrics after 50% pruning, or a clear visual mismatch between images produced by full-data and pruned-data models when using identical random seeds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16079 by Michael Kamp, Ohad Fried, Rania Briq, Sarel Cohen, Stefan Kesselheim.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Stability of the generated images. (a) We train the model on two disjoint random subsets of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Stability of the generated images under different pruning strategies and their in￾verse, pr = 0.5. In order: Grad1/−1 , Loss1/−1 , Clust1/−1 b . Data swapping. The experiment depicted in Fig. 1d is the most extreme form of data alter￾ation. The FM model is trained on a differ￾ent but same-domain dataset, FFHQ [17], which also comprises human faces. Even then, the out￾puts retain resemblance and we obtain A… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The success of deep generative models in generating high-quality and diverse samples is often attributed to particular architectures and large training datasets. In this paper, we investigate the impact of these factors on the quality and diversity of samples generated by \emph{flow-matching} models. Surprisingly, in our experiments on CelebA-HQ dataset, flow matching remains stable even when pruning 50\% of the dataset. That is, the quality and diversity of generated samples are preserved. Moreover, pruning impacts the latent representation only slightly, that is, samples generated by models trained on the full and pruned dataset map to visually similar outputs for a given seed. We observe similar stability when changing the architecture or training configuration, such that the latent representation is maintained under these changes as well. Our results quantify just how strong this stability can be in practice, and help explain the reliability of flow-matching models under various perturbations.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that flow-matching models exhibit strong empirical stability on the CelebA-HQ dataset: even after pruning 50% of the training data, the quality and diversity of generated samples remain preserved. It further asserts that pruning affects the latent representation only slightly, as evidenced by visually similar outputs for fixed seeds from models trained on the full versus pruned datasets. Analogous stability is reported under changes to model architecture or training configuration, which the authors argue helps explain the reliability of flow-matching models under perturbations.

Significance. If the empirical observations hold under rigorous scrutiny, the results would be significant for the field of generative modeling. They would demonstrate that flow matching is unusually robust to substantial data reduction and to variations in architecture/training, potentially reducing the need for massive datasets in practice and providing a practical explanation for observed reliability. The work is purely observational and would benefit from quantitative validation to elevate its impact.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that pruning 'impacts the latent representation only slightly' rests solely on the statement that samples for a given seed are 'visually similar.' No quantitative metrics (LPIPS, SSIM, latent cosine similarity, etc.), statistical tests across multiple seeds, or comparison to intra-model variability are reported, making it impossible to assess whether the similarity exceeds training noise.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The pruning procedure, evaluation metrics for quality/diversity, number of independent runs, and controls for confounding factors (e.g., random seeds, training hyperparameters) are not described. Without these details the reported preservation of quality and diversity cannot be reproduced or verified.
  3. [Abstract] Abstract: The assumption that random 50% pruning preserves the data distribution sufficiently for quality/diversity metrics to remain meaningful is untested; no analysis of distribution shift (MMD, coverage, or similar) is provided, which is load-bearing for interpreting the stability result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The title uses informal language ('Amazing Stability'); a more precise title would better suit a technical manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments. We agree that the current presentation would benefit from additional quantitative support, clearer experimental details, and validation of the pruning assumption. We outline specific revisions below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that pruning 'impacts the latent representation only slightly' rests solely on the statement that samples for a given seed are 'visually similar.' No quantitative metrics (LPIPS, SSIM, latent cosine similarity, etc.), statistical tests across multiple seeds, or comparison to intra-model variability are reported, making it impossible to assess whether the similarity exceeds training noise.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the evidence presented for the effect on latent representations is qualitative. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative metrics (LPIPS, SSIM, and latent-space cosine similarity) computed over multiple fixed seeds, together with statistical comparisons against intra-model variability obtained from repeated training runs with different random seeds. These additions will allow readers to judge whether the observed similarity exceeds typical training stochasticity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The pruning procedure, evaluation metrics for quality/diversity, number of independent runs, and controls for confounding factors (e.g., random seeds, training hyperparameters) are not described. Without these details the reported preservation of quality and diversity cannot be reproduced or verified.

    Authors: The full manuscript contains the pruning procedure (uniform random subsampling to 50 %), the quality and diversity metrics (FID together with recall-based diversity), and the training configuration. Nevertheless, we agree these elements are insufficiently summarized for quick verification. We will expand the abstract with a concise methods paragraph and insert a table listing the number of independent runs, random-seed controls, and key hyperparameters. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assumption that random 50% pruning preserves the data distribution sufficiently for quality/diversity metrics to remain meaningful is untested; no analysis of distribution shift (MMD, coverage, or similar) is provided, which is load-bearing for interpreting the stability result.

    Authors: We accept that an explicit check on distribution shift strengthens the interpretation. In the revision we will report MMD and coverage statistics between the original and pruned CelebA-HQ training sets, confirming that the random 50 % subsample does not introduce a detectable shift that would invalidate the quality/diversity comparisons. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely observational empirical results

full rationale

The paper reports experimental outcomes from training flow-matching models on full vs. pruned CelebA-HQ datasets and varying architectures/configurations. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions appear in the abstract or described content. All claims rest on direct observations of sample quality, diversity, and visual similarity for fixed seeds, which are independent measurements rather than reductions to inputs by construction. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-citation chains or ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical study and introduces no new mathematical axioms, free parameters, or invented entities. It implicitly relies on standard machine learning assumptions such as the validity of common image generation metrics and that visual inspection plus latent mapping similarity reflect meaningful stability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5453 in / 1183 out tokens · 39683 ms · 2026-05-10T08:34:44.827653+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Exploring and Exploiting Stability in Latent Flow Matching

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Latent Flow Matching models exhibit inherent stability to data reduction and model shrinkage due to the flow matching objective, enabling reduced-dataset training and two-stage inference with over 2x speedup while pre...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation

    Omer Bar-Tal, Hila Chefer, Omer Tov, Charles Herrmann, Roni Paiss, Shiran Zada, Ariel Ephrat, Junhwa Hur, Guanghui Liu, Amit Raj, et al. Lumiere: A space-time diffusion model for video generation. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pages 1–11, 2024

    2024

  2. [2]

    On the closed-form of flow matching: Generalization does not arise from target stochasticity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03719,

    Quentin Bertrand, Anne Gagneux, Mathurin Massias, and Rémi Emonet. On the closed-form of flow matching: Generalization does not arise from target stochasticity.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.03719, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    PaliGemma: A versatile 3B VLM for transfer

    Lucas Beyer, Andreas Steiner, André Susano Pinto, Alexander Kolesnikov, Xiao Wang, Daniel Salz, Maxim Neumann, Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Michael Tschannen, Emanuele Bugliarello, et al. Paligemma: A versatile 3b vlm for transfer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07726, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Andreas Blattmann, Robin Rombach, Huan Ling, Tim Dockhorn, Seung Wook Kim, Sanja Fidler, and Karsten Kreis. Align your latents: High-resolution video synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 22563–22575, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Data pruning in generative diffusion models

    Rania Briq, Jiangtao Wang, and Stefan Kesselheim. Data pruning in generative diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12523, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Diffusion schrödinger bridge with applications to score-based generative modeling.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:17695–17709, 2021

    Valentin De Bortoli, James Thornton, Jeremy Heng, and Arnaud Doucet. Diffusion schrödinger bridge with applications to score-based generative modeling.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:17695–17709, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition

    Jiankang Deng, Jia Guo, Xue Niannan, and Stefanos Zafeiriou. Arcface: Additive angular margin loss for deep face recognition. InCVPR, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale

    Alexey Dosovitskiy. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Scaling rectified flow trans- formers for high-resolution image synthesis

    Patrick Esser, Sumith Kulal, Andreas Blattmann, Rahim Entezari, Jonas Müller, Harry Saini, Yam Levi, Dominik Lorenz, Axel Sauer, Frederic Boesel, et al. Scaling rectified flow trans- formers for high-resolution image synthesis. InForty-first international conference on machine learning, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    How do flow matching models memorize and generalize in sample data subspaces?, 2024

    Weiguo Gao and Ming Li. How do flow matching models memorize and generalize in sample data subspaces?arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23594, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Stability of entropic optimal transport and schrödinger bridges.Journal of Functional Analysis, 283(9):109622, 2022

    Promit Ghosal, Marcel Nutz, and Espen Bernton. Stability of entropic optimal transport and schrödinger bridges.Journal of Functional Analysis, 283(9):109622, 2022

    2022

  12. [12]

    Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Martin Heusel, Hubert Ramsauer, Thomas Unterthiner, Bernhard Nessler, and Sepp Hochreiter. Gans trained by a two time-scale update rule converge to a local nash equilibrium.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  13. [13]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  14. [14]

    Imagen Video: High Definition Video Generation with Diffusion Models

    Jonathan Ho, William Chan, Chitwan Saharia, Jay Whang, Ruiqi Gao, Alexey Gritsenko, Diederik P Kingma, Ben Poole, Mohammad Norouzi, David J Fleet, et al. Imagen video: High definition video generation with diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02303, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Generalization in diffusion models arises from geometry-adaptive harmonic representation

    Zahra Kadkhodaie, Florentin Guth, Eero P Simoncelli, and St’ephane Mallat. Generalization in diffusion models arises from geometry-adaptive harmonic representation. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    Progressive Growing of GANs for Improved Quality, Stability, and Variation

    Tero Karras, Timo Aila, Samuli Laine, and Jaakko Lehtinen. Progressive growing of gans for improved quality, stability, and variation.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10196, 2017

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

    Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 6

    2019

  18. [18]

    Flow Matching for Generative Modeling

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky TQ Chen, Heli Ben-Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matt Le. Flow matching for generative modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.02747, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Flow Straight and Fast: Learning to Generate and Transfer Data with Rectified Flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and Qiang Liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow.arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.03003, 2022

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Sora: A Review on Background, Technology, Limitations, and Opportunities of Large Vision Models

    Yixin Liu, Kai Zhang, Yuan Li, Zhiling Yan, Chujie Gao, Ruoxi Chen, Zhengqing Yuan, Yue Huang, Hanchi Sun, Jianfeng Gao, et al. Sora: a review on background, technology, limitations, and opportunities of large vision models (2024).URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.17177

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Deep learning face attributes in the wild

    Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 3730–3738, 2015

    2015

  22. [22]

    Least squares quantization in pcm.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28 (2):129–137, 1982

    Stuart Lloyd. Least squares quantization in pcm.IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 28 (2):129–137, 1982

    1982

  23. [23]

    Influence functions for scalable data attribution in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13850, 2024

    Bruno Mlodozeniec, Runa Eschenhagen, Juhan Bae, Alexander Immer, David Krueger, and Richard Turner. Influence functions for scalable data attribution in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13850, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important examples early in training.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:20596–20607, 2021

    Mansheej Paul, Surya Ganguli, and Gintare Karolina Dziugaite. Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important examples early in training.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:20596–20607, 2021

    2021

  25. [25]

    Scalable diffusion models with transformers

    William Peebles and Saining Xie. Scalable diffusion models with transformers. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pages 4195–4205, 2023

    2023

  26. [26]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  27. [27]

    High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

    Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, and Björn Ommer. High- resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 10684–10695, 2022

    2022

  28. [28]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InInternational Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  29. [29]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution.Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  30. [30]

    Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456, 2020

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport

    Alexander Tong, Kilian Fatras, Nikolay Malkin, Guillaume Huguet, Yanlei Zhang, Jarrid Rector- Brooks, Guy Wolf, and Yoshua Bengio. Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00482, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Neural discrete representation learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Aaron Van Den Oord, Oriol Vinyals, et al. Neural discrete representation learning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. 7

    2017