Improving Few-Step Language Flows with Untied Self-Conditioning

Flow-matching language models refine all token positions in parallel and can trade sampling steps for latency, yet generation quality still degrades sharply with few sampling steps. We trace a source of this degradation to a train--inference mismatch in previous-prediction self-conditioning: during training, the self-conditioning input is computed from the current noisy state with no intervening solver step; during sampling, the solver folds the previous prediction into the latent before that same prediction reappears as the explicit self-conditioning input. This coupling, absent during training, creates redundancy that grows with step width. We show that the mismatch degrades both the self-conditioning input and the solver update, and derive a correction for each from the model's own structure. From the frozen projection weights we identify directions along which the self-conditioning input is redundant with the latent and dampen them; from the solver's integration structure we derive that a step-average prediction is needed and approximate it from prediction history, with scale set by offline trajectory statistics. The resulting sampler, Untied Self-Conditioning, requires no retraining and uses one evaluation per step. At 8 sampling steps on LangFlow, it reduces OpenWebText generative perplexity from $531$ to~$62$ ($8.6\times$); under an adapted Arena-Hard-Auto~v2 protocol, its outputs are preferred in $96\%$ of pairwise comparisons. On ELF-B it reduces generative perplexity from $71$ to~$43$. Improvements hold from 8 to 256 sampling steps.

Self-conditioned Flow Map Language Models via Fixed-point Flows

Self-conditioning is a core technique that enhances continuous flow-based language models, where the model learns to denoise generated text by conditioning on its own denoising estimate. While empirically successful, its performance improvements are poorly understood. Moreover, there is growing interest in the use of few-step generators based on flow maps, for which how to leverage self-conditioning is unclear. Here, we show that flow language models with self-conditioning solve a fixed-point iteration that bootstraps the performance of the learned denoiser. We use this viewpoint to formulate fixed-point flows, a two-dimensional class of self-conditioned flows, where the first dimension represents the flow process and the second represents the fixed-point iteration. We show that fixed-point flows define valid flow maps, and show that they can be distilled from self-conditioned flow models by compressing both fixed-point iterations and the flow process, the former with fixed-point distillation and the latter with flow map distillation. Our resulting flow map language model, FMLM$^\star$, outperforms state-of-the-art self-conditioned models and few-step models in one- and few-step generation on OpenWebText. Code is available at https://github.com/Ugness/self-conditioned-fmlm.

Low Perplexity is Repetition: A One-Dimensional Self-Conditioning Attractor in Continuous Diffusion LMs

Continuous diffusion language models such as ELF report record-low generative perplexity (Gen-PPL). We find a catch: these models repeat far more than human text, and Gen-PPL rewards rather than penalizes that repetition, so its low scores overstate quality. Strip the repetition and ELF-B's Gen-PPL rises from $19.5$ to $27.7$; the smallest model even posts the best Gen-PPL because it repeats most. We trace the repetition to its source: a contractive attractor along a \emph{single direction} in the self-conditioning feedback loop, the loop that feeds each step's clean estimate into the next. Because the failure is one-dimensional, a one-dimensional fix suffices, and we propose one. \textbf{ACE} (Attractor-Contrast-Escape) subtracts that single, label-free direction from the feedback at each step. Estimated once on the $105$M model, the direction cuts repetition to near the human level while keeping quality competitive, and transfers near-unchanged to the $342$M and $652$M models and across samplers; the same recipe recovers useful directions on other architectures. Since Gen-PPL itself rewards repetition, we instead measure the compute each fix needs to produce human-clean text, where ACE is $1.5$--$5\times$ cheaper.