Self-Conditioning Enables Deep Sequential Reasoning in Flow Matching
AuthorsZeyang Zhang, Linxiang Gao, Meiqi Gu, Xingyan Chen, Minrui Luo, Kaifeng Lyu, Tianxing He
AffiliationsShanghai Qi Zhi Institute · Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Tsinghua University · Georgia Institute of Technology · Xiongan AI Institute
Self-conditioning lets flow-matching models use more sampling steps for deeper visual reasoning.
Key results
Self-conditioning average across five tasks, versus 65.9% for vanilla flow matching.
Self-conditioning score at 10 NFEs.
Vanilla flow matching reaches this score at 6 NFEs and saturates below 8 through 50 NFEs.
Average across four structured visual-reasoning tasks with one jointly trained adapter.
What the paper found
This paper argues that more flow-matching steps do not automatically mean deeper reasoning. Under bounded, Lipschitz-regular velocity models, vanilla flow matching can be compressed into a constant number of parallel computation rounds, so increasing sampling steps alone does not expand what a constant-depth backbone can compute. The key contribution is to reinterpret self-conditioning—the model receives its previous estimate of the final image—as a scratchpad that can change sharply between steps, carrying intermediate work forward. Theoretically, this lets a constant-depth AC0 model simulate space-bounded computation, reaching PSPACE/poly with at most exponentially many steps, while vanilla flow matching remains within its backbone’s circuit class. In experiments, self-conditioning improves results on line tracing, long multiplication, and text rendering, and its line-tracing score reaches 49.84 at 10 NFEs; vanilla flow matching peaks at 7.66 by 6 NFEs and then saturates. On five structured visual-reasoning tasks, mean accuracy rises from 65.9% to 76.7%. Large-scale tests use Qwen-Image-Edit-2511 and FLUX.2-klein-base-4B; a unified Qwen adapter reaches 90.2% average accuracy. The paper also reports GPT-5 and Gemini-3-Flash among Jigsaw reference baselines. The central design lesson is that iterative samplers need to pass rich intermediate information between steps for added computation to become added reasoning depth.
Original abstract
Recent work has explored visual reasoning through image generation, where models solve visual-reasoning problems by directly generating solution images. Intuitively, iterative samplers such as flow matching are well suited to this task, since each sampling step may resemble one reasoning step. However, in this work, from a circuit complexity perspective, we show that this intuition is misleading. We prove that as long as the model outputs satisfy certain mild regularity conditions, the trajectory of the vanilla flow-matching sampler can be simulated by a constant number of sequential rounds of parallel model evaluations. Consequently, additional sampling steps cannot increase the expressive power of a constant-depth backbone model under the standard complexity-theoretic model of transformers. We then reveal that self-conditioning, which conditions the model on the previous step's estimate of the final image, plays a previously unrecognized role in removing this bottleneck. Controlled experiments on diverse visual-reasoning tasks show that flow matching with self-conditioning achieves higher accuracy and greater reasoning depth than vanilla flow matching, and its performance improves with more sampling steps. Theoretically, we prove that with self-conditioning, a constant-depth backbone can achieve expressive power equivalent to that of space-bounded Turing machines. Our study suggests a design principle for future visual reasoning research: carry more information between sampling steps, so that additional steps translate into deeper reasoning.
Read the original paperMore in AI Reasoning
Browse all 45 papers →Inducing Process Supervision from Outcome-Only Reinforcement Learning
Shengda Fan, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Haotian Chen, Yankai Lin
TIPS trains models to judge their own reasoning steps using only outcome feedback, avoiding the need for costly step-by-step annotations.
LeanPRM: Lean-Grounded Process Supervision for Natural Language Proof Verification
Rodney Lafuente-Mercado, Salman Rahman, Jingyan Shen, James Shiffer, Saadia Gabriel, Pavel Izmailov
LeanPRM uses Lean-checked formal proofs to generate scalable training labels that help AI models verify each step of mathematical proofs.
LEV: Thinking Fast and Deep with Looped Decision Models
Dingjie Song, Zhiling Yan, Yuxuan Zhang, Lichao Sun
LEV lets a model think longer by looping its layers, improving answers to hard questions while adapting compute to the task.