mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Rethinking Prediction Horizons: Decoupling Model Queries from State Updates in Few-Step MeanFlow

arXiv 2610.20071 ↗First posted 14 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

MeanFlow predicts interval-average velocities, but conventional few-step sampling ties the interval queried from the model to the duration of the state update. We separate these two quantities at inference, fixing the model, update grid, and number of queries while varying the prediction horizon. Our central finding is that the horizon response depends on both query position and the states entering that query. Across seven independently trained CIFAR-10 checkpoints at classifier-free guidance (CFG) scale 2, a longer horizon worsens FID at early steps but improves it at the midpoint. To probe whether query time alone determines this response, we fix the midpoint query and current/subsequent guidance while changing only earlier CFG. In held-out factorial outcomes on five previously studied checkpoints, the mean midpoint horizon benefit increases from 0.109 to 1.308 FID, indicating sensitivity to the incoming-state distribution. A frozen four-query rule reduces mean CIFAR-10 FID by 2.023 without retraining or extra queries, including gains on five checkpoints trained after rule selection. A milder rule also improves mean FID by 1.041 on a stronger frozen grid, with fixed-rule FID gains on the evaluated public ImageNet-256 and AFHQ checkpoints. However, matched-budget calibration favors query-start shifting in historical CIFAR tests, and the tested Horizon allocation adds no FID benefit beyond Grid+Start on two public ImageNet models. Thus, prediction horizon is a distinct, position- and state-sensitive inference control, but not a universally preferred one.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2026.

Builds on

23 of 24 references.

References · 23

  1. 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
  2. 2022Scalable Diffusion Models with Transformerscited by 6,054
  3. 2022Flow Matching for Generative Modelingcited by 5,702
  4. 2018Demystifying MMD GANscited by 1,293
  5. 2019StarGAN v2: Diverse Image Synthesis for Multiple Domainscited by 1,098
  6. 2025Mean Flows for One-step Generative Modelingcited by 561
  7. 2024One Step Diffusion via Shortcut Modelscited by 391
  8. 2024Applying Guidance in a Limited Interval Improves Sample and Distribution Quality in Diffusion Modelscited by 254
  9. 2025Improved Mean Flows: On the Challenges of Fastforward Generative Modelscited by 110
  10. 2024Align Your Steps: Optimizing Sampling Schedules in Diffusion Modelscited by 96
  11. 2023Alleviating Exposure Bias in Diffusion Models through Sampling with Shifted Time Stepscited by 73
  12. 2026Flow Map Language Models: One-step Language Modeling via Continuous Denoisingcited by 66
11 more
  1. 2025Decoupled MeanFlow: Turning Flow Models into Flow Maps for Accelerated Samplingcited by 20
  2. 2023Towards More Accurate Diffusion Model Acceleration with A Timestep Tunercited by 14
  3. 2026MeanCache: From Instantaneous to Average Velocity for Accelerating Flow Matching Inferencecited by 10
  4. 2025Optimal Stepsize for Diffusion Samplingcited by 7
  5. 2025STORK: Faster Diffusion And Flow Matching Sampling By Resolving Both Stiffness And Structure-Dependencecited by 5
  6. 2025Understanding, Accelerating, and Improving MeanFlow Trainingcited by 4
  7. 2025IntMeanFlow: Few-step Speech Generation with Integral Velocity Distillationcited by 3
  8. 2026Flow Map Denoisers: Traversing the Distortion-Perception Plane for Inverse Problemscited by 2
  9. 2026Optimize Your Sampling: Tuned Diffusion Sampling with Bayesian Optimizationcited by 2
  10. 2026Error as Signal: Stiffness-Aware Diffusion Sampling via Embedded Runge-Kutta Guidancecited by 1
  11. 2026Three Creates All: You Only Sample 3 Stepscited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.