Hugging Face Trending Papers

Beyond Transport Cost: Routing Differences between Flow Matching and Optimal Transport

The paper investigates how routing—where each noise sample is directed—differs between Flow Matching (FM) and Optimal Transport (OT) even when their transport costs are nearly identical. By separating cost from routing, the authors demonstrate numerically that FM and OT can produce similar costs yet diverge in routing decisions. They further show that incorporating routing information into training improves generation quality compared to a cost-only approach.

arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 28

COFM: Consistent Optimal Transport Flow Matching via Partially Input Convex Neural Networks

The paper introduces COFM, a framework for consistent optimal transport flow matching that uses partially input convex neural networks (PICNN) to parameterize the transport potential. By adding a Hamilton‑Jacobi residual to the training objective, COFM enforces dynamical consistency and supports both one‑step transport and multi‑step ODE sampling without costly inner optimization. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that COFM achieves competitive performance while reducing L^2‑UVP by over 2× and cutting computational time by about 9× compared to state‑of‑the‑art models.

By Fanghui Song, Zhongjian Wang, Jiebao Sun
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 29

The Fundamental Limits of Valid Transport Map Estimation

Many modern generative modeling methods, including diffusion models, normalizing flows, and flow matching, estimate transport maps or plans between distributions without explicitly targeting an optimal transport (OT) map. In applications like generative modeling, the transport cost itself is irrelevant, and this makes it natural to target maps which are more tractable from either a statistical or computational standpoint.

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 10

ParetoTransport: Generative Optimization by Mass Transport Toward The Pareto Front

ParetoTransport is a training‑free guidance method for pre‑trained flow‑matching models that explicitly refines a population‑level distribution in objective space. It iteratively transports the empirical offline distribution toward the Pareto front using Wasserstein matching to intermediate proxy distributions, thereby controlling distributional displacement and mass allocation along the front. The authors prove a convergence result and show state‑of‑the‑art performance on standard offline multi‑objective optimization benchmarks, evaluating beyond hypervolume to generational distance, inverted generational distance, and Wasserstein distance.

By Stephanie Holly, Sepp Hochreiter, Werner Zellinger
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 17

Beyond Random Couplings: Contrastive Noise Alignment in Generative Flows

The paper introduces Contrastive Noise Alignment (CNA), a training-time method for generative flow models that dynamically aligns Gaussian noise with data samples using a cross-modal InfoNCE objective. By modeling noise as an interacting particle system and regularizing with angular entropy and radial norm penalties, CNA reduces arbitrary data-noise couplings and flow curvature. Empirical results show that CNA improves generation quality, lowering FID by over 50% for few-step pixel-space generation compared to standard rectified flow and outperforming optimal transport baselines by at least 24%.

By Lennart Wittke, Vinicius Azevedo
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 15

A Variational Optimal Transport Operator on Incompressible Flow

The paper introduces the Variational Incompressible Optimal Transport (VIOT) operator, a generative neural operator that predicts divergence‑free velocity fields for incompressible density transport. VIOT combines a stream‑function representation, a regularized transport objective, and a Fourier Neural Operator backbone to amortize the solve across new source‑target pairs and grid resolutions. Experiments on 2D and 3D benchmarks show that VIOT produces full transport trajectories in seconds, achieving roughly a $10^4 imes$ speedup over per‑instance baselines that require hours of optimization.

By Jinjin He, Shenyifan Lu, Sinan Wang, Zhiqi Li, Duowen Chen, Bo Zhu
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 3

One-Step Generative Modeling via Training Dynamics Action

The paper introduces TDAction, a method for one‑step generative modeling that selects transport targets during training based on a cost reflecting shared‑parameter effort and terminal mismatch. By formulating this as a soft‑terminal control problem, the authors derive a closed‑form Batch Tangent Action‑to‑Go value that captures cross‑sample interactions and can be efficiently implemented with randomized tangent probes. Experiments on ImageNet 256×256 demonstrate that TDAction achieves an FID below 1.1 without distillation.

By Zhangyong Liang, Ying Huang, Haibin Ling