You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Per-token FlowMatch Euler steps use the opposite velocity sign #15185
FlowMatchEulerDiscreteScheduler.step reverses the deterministic velocity sign when per_token_timesteps is supplied. A zero sample with unit velocity and sigma changing from 1 to 0.5 should advance to -0.5, regardless of whether timesteps are scalar or per-token.
The shipped LTXCondition and SanaWM pipelines compensate by negating the model prediction. That preserves their deterministic updates, but supplies the wrong velocity to the stochastic clean-sample estimate x0 = sample - sigma * velocity.
PR #15177 corrects the scheduler sign and removes both caller compensations. External per-token callers using the old negation must remove it too.
Expected: both paths return six -0.5 values. The fixed code in #15177 does so.
System Info
Reproduced on CPU, Windows, Python 3.12.6, PyTorch 2.15.0+cpu, Diffusers 0.42.0.dev0. The failing run used the scheduler source from the parent of PR commit f7ccd23; the passing run used that PR commit. No GPU or generation-quality claim.
Assistance
Filed by an AI coding agent at the contributor's request, following the maintainer permission reported by the contributor. Human review: davrens101 confirmed reviewing the work live before submission. No independent maintainer approval of the fix is claimed.
Thanks for reporting this issue but note that changes in #15177 seem incomplete without visual validation. Our integrations follow parity checking so the bug you're describing doesn't sound appropriate from that perspective. Also, what is more interesting is that SanaWM pipeline was contributed by the actual team (cc: @lawrence-cj).
Activity
sayakpaul commentedon Nov 9, 2026
Thanks for reporting this issue but note that changes in #15177 seem incomplete without visual validation. Our integrations follow parity checking so the bug you're describing doesn't sound appropriate from that perspective. Also, what is more interesting is that SanaWM pipeline was contributed by the actual team (cc: @lawrence-cj).