Why Do Few-Step Text Latents Fail When Image Latents Work? Non-Commitment at Sharp Categorical Readouts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deterministic few-step generation succeeds on continuous image latents but collapses to incoherent text on continuous text latents, and we show the cause is geometric rather than a training or scaling deficiency: a smooth, regularity-limited deterministic map cannot resolve a discrete branch choice before a sharp categorical readout, so few-step failure is governed by decoder sharpness, not transport accuracy. In the overlapping regime of real text autoencoders, we prove (Theorem 3) that the posterior-mean terminal step flips tokens at the rate of the latent mass in an O(s(t)) tube around decision boundaries. Two diagnostics, DABI (readout sharpness) and CCI (categorical commitment), measured on published checkpoints show that four independently built continuous-text decoders amplify a boundary-aligned perturbation far beyond a norm-matched isotropic one (DABI from 5×102 to >105), while image decoders have DABI ≈ 1. Two mechanisms escape the continuous bound: categorical commitment (autoregressive decoders succeed despite sharper readouts) and stochastic re-injection (deterministic ODE at K=4 gives PPL 294 versus SDE 50 on the same model). In the idealized separated regime we prove matching sharp transport laws, including a dimension phase diagram: the deterministic stiffness needed to separate M modes grows as Theta(√log M) once the latent dimension is Omega(log M) (and as M1/n in fixed dimension), with a depth-B hierarchy giving a √B-smaller per-step peak (Theorems 5-7); a coarea identity links these to the overlapping tube (Theorem 17). The result is an accuracy-depth-stiffness tradeoff: within the deterministic-continuous class the cost is irreducible, and both escapes step outside it.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jun 2026.
Builds on
19 of 37 references.
References · 19
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,029
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2022Flow Matching for Generative Modelingcited by 5,426
- 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2022Flow Straight and Fast: Learning to Generate and Transfer Data with Rectified Flowcited by 3,550
- 2023Consistency Modelscited by 1,778
- 2024Simple and Effective Masked Diffusion Language Modelscited by 800
- 2024SANA: Efficient High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Linear Diffusion Transformerscited by 331
7 more
- 2025Diffusion Transformers with Representation Autoencoderscited by 275
- 2026Flow Map Language Models: One-step Language Modeling via Continuous Denoisingcited by 49
- 2022Can Push-forward Generative Models Fit Multimodal Distributions?cited by 41
- 2026CoDAR: Continuous Diffusion Language Models are More Powerful Than You Thinkcited by 13
- 2025Loopholing Discrete Diffusion: Deterministic Bypass of the Sampling Wallcited by 6
- 2026DiLaDiff: Distilled Latent-Augmented Diffusion for Language Modelingcited by 3
- 2026FastDiSS: Few-step Match Many-step Diffusion Language Model on Sequence-to-Sequence Generation--Full Versioncited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.