Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Diffusion priors for Bayesian 3D reconstruction from incomplete measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that diffusion models trained on 3D point clouds provide Bayesian priors that make 3D reconstruction from very sparse, low-resolution, partial measurements tractable, producing structures closer to ground truth than…

desk verdict Solid proof of concept for diffusion-prior 3D reconstruction, but the missing alpha=0 control means the paper doesn't fully isolate the effect of the guidance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14897 v1 pith:YKWDOWVB submitted 2024-12-19 cs.LG

Julian L. Möbius , Michael Habeck This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords diffusionpriorsBayesianinverseproblems3Dpointcloudreconstructioncryo-EMposteriorsamplingguidancesparsemeasurementsscore-basedgenerativemodels
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a diffusion model trained on 3D point-cloud structures can act as a Bayesian prior that makes severely ill-posed 3D reconstruction from sparse measurements tractable. The authors integrate the prior with likelihoods for 2D projections, coarse-grained structures, and subunits via approximate diffusion posterior sampling, and compare against maximum-likelihood fitting with the same forward models. Across all tested ShapeNet configurations, the diffusion prior improves Chamfer Distance and Earth Mover's Distance reconstruction errors, even though ML often achieves higher likelihood. On biomolecular complexes with deposited atomic structures, one to five synthetic projections, sometimes plus a low-resolution structure or a known subunit, yield intermediate-resolution models with RMSDs of roughly 2 to 10 angstroms. The upshot is that rich data-driven priors can replace generic regularizers for cryo-EM-like inverse problems.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a score-based diffusion model trained on 3D point clouds with perturbation kernel $\mathcal{N}(x(0), t^2 I)$, combined with reconstruction guidance. Guidance replaces the intractable posterior over clean structures, $p(x(0) \mid x(t))$, with a point mass at the denoiser output $D_\theta(x(t), t)$, then backpropagates through assignment-based energies: for projections, the minimum over permutation matrices assigning upsampled projected points to cloud points; for coarse and subunit clouds, analogous minimum-assignment matching. These energies are solved with the Hungarian algorithm, and sampling uses an Euler-Maruyama integrator with second-order correction and stochastic noise injection. The whole chain converts a diffusion prior into a conditional sampler for arbitrary combinations of sparse observations.

What would settle it

Generate synthetic projections from a test structure that is clearly outside the distribution the diffusion prior was trained on, for example a random linear polymer, reconstruct with the same pipeline, and measure whether the posterior samples still match the projections or instead snap back to typical training shapes; if the samples ignore the measurements, the guidance is not conditioning on data. A sharper check is to compare DPS samples to samples from an exact conditional diffusion sampler, such as a sequential Monte Carlo approach, on a small point-cloud task; a large gap in RMSD or Chamfer distance would show the delta approximation is doing the work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the paper's own terms, is that posterior sampling with a diffusion model prior enables 3D reconstruction from very sparse, low-resolution and partial observations, where generic priors fail. Concretely, the same likelihood that guides the diffusion prior, when optimized alone, produces higher-likelihood but structurally worse reconstructions; adding the prior consistently yields lower EMD and CD errors in every test case. For biomolecular complexes, the method produces intermediate-resolution structures from as few as one to five synthetic 2D projections, with RMSDs of roughly three to ten angstroms against deposited atomic models. The point-cloud representation and assignment-based likelihoods, solved as linear assignment problems, let the same trained prior condition on projections, coarse clouds, and subunits without task-specific retraining.

Load-bearing premise

The method relies on the approximation that the denoiser output fully determines the clean structure, treating the posterior over clean data as a point mass; if that approximation is poor for point-cloud likelihoods, samples will be biased toward the prior and the reconstructions will not faithfully reflect the measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • One trained diffusion prior can be reused for many observation geometries, including 2D projections, coarse-grained structures, subunits, or any weighted combination, without retraining the likelihood or the prior.
  • Sparse cryo-EM-like data from one to five projections can yield intermediate-resolution models with RMSDs around 2 to 10 angstroms against deposited atomic structures, which could make it feasible to study conformational differences between individual complexes.
  • The diffusion prior consistently beats maximum likelihood on EMD and CD in every ShapeNet test case, showing that data-driven priors are an effective regularizer for severely ill-posed 3D reconstruction.
  • Stochasticity in the sampling SDE plus a second-order correction step lowers reconstruction error at fixed network evaluations, so the details of the sampler matter for reconstruction quality.
  • Combining complementary sparse observations, such as projections plus a low-resolution envelope plus a known subunit, produces the most accurate reconstructions, as demonstrated on the spliceosome and the 26S proteasome.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the representation is a coarse-grained point cloud, pushing to atomic resolution will likely require hierarchical priors or hybrid density-and-point-cloud models; the paper's stated goal of improving resolution points in that direction.
  • The minimum-over-permutations energy is non-smooth; replacing it with a soft assignment or entropic optimal transport could give smoother guidance gradients and potentially improve posterior sampling, a direct and testable extension.
  • If the claims hold on experimental cryo-EM data, this could complement standard reconstruction pipelines by providing models from very few particle images, which is useful for heterogeneous or flexible complexes.
  • The reported RMSDs depend on radius-of-gyration scaling and kernel-correlation alignment before comparison, so a different alignment convention could change the absolute numbers; cross-study comparisons should be cautious.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a Bayesian framework for 3D point-cloud reconstruction in which a score-based diffusion model trained on clean point clouds serves as a prior, and sparse observations (2D projections, coarse-grained structures, or subunits) are incorporated through reconstruction guidance (DPS). The authors train diffusion priors on three datasets (ShapeNet-Chair, ShapeNet-Mixed, CryoStruct), define assignment-based likelihood energies in Eqs. (10)-(14), and compare their approximate posterior sampler against maximum-likelihood optimization with the same forward models. Table 1 reports lower Chamfer and Earth Mover distances for DPS over ML in nine ShapeNet tasks, and Appendices A.4.1-A.4.7 report per-structure RMSD comparisons on 100 held-out biomolecular complexes, with selected examples shown in Figure 2.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution: it demonstrates a flexible, task-agnostic way to condition a generative prior on severely incomplete 3D measurements, and it applies this to cryo-EM-like settings with very few projections. The evaluation has genuine strengths: the prior is trained on a training split and tested on held-out structures, the ML baseline uses the same observational model, and the ShapeNet comparison aggregates 1,000 reconstructions. The manuscript is also honest about runtime costs. However, the central claim that the observations are what drive the reconstructions is not yet supported, because no prior-only (alpha=0) baseline is reported and the guidance strength is manually tuned per task. The paper also relies on the DPS delta approximation for non-smooth assignment energies without a diagnostic. For these reasons the result is promising but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (9), Table 1] Table 1 and the CryoStruct benchmarks compare DPS only against ML; there is no alpha=0 (unconditional prior sampling) control. Setting alpha=0 in the guidance weight zeta=alpha(t)/sqrt(log p0(y|D_theta(x(t),t))) in Eq. (9) reduces Algorithm 1 to sampling from the prior alone, so the reported gains over ML could in principle be an effect of the prior distribution rather than of the likelihood guidance. This is not merely hypothetical: Table 3 shows that the priors generate samples whose 1-NNA values are far from random, and the ShapeNet test instances come from the same categories used in training. The paper should report the CD/EMD (and RMSD, for CryoStruct) of prior-only samples on the same test sets, or otherwise demonstrate that the guidance term shifts the samples toward the measurements (e.g. by showing that the energy of DPS samples is lower than that of prior-only samples). Without this control, the abstract's claim that posterior sampling with diffusion priors allows 3D reconstruction from very sparse observations is not established.
  2. [Section A.3, Table 4] Guidance strength alpha is chosen separately for each row of Table 1, with values ranging from 4,000 to 80,000, yet no sensitivity analysis or selection rule is given. Since alpha is the knob that controls the balance between prior and likelihood, the headline advantage of DPS over ML could be sensitive to this tuning. The authors should include a sensitivity sweep (e.g. CD/EMD versus alpha for at least one ShapeNet and one CryoStruct task) and, ideally, a principled way to set alpha before the method can be claimed as generally applicable. The same concern applies to the task-specific choices of beta(t) in Table 4.
  3. [Appendix A.1, Eq. (17), Eqs. (10)-(13)] Reconstruction guidance replaces p(x(0)|x(t)) with a delta at the denoiser output (Eq. 17), and the guidance gradient is computed through a min-over-permutations energy (Eqs. 10-13). For point clouds with assignment-based likelihoods, this energy is non-smooth and the delta approximation has no error control; it is therefore not clear that the guided samples approximate the intended posterior, as opposed to a prior sample adjusted by a heuristic gradient. The authors should add a diagnostic: for example, compare the measurement energies of DPS samples against prior-only samples and against the energies of the ground-truth test inputs, or run a small experiment with a known posterior to check whether the sampler is measurement-faithful. Section 4.4 lists runtime as the only limitation, but this approximation is at least as important.
  4. [Sections 4.2-4.3] All experiments are conducted on synthetic measurements generated from the ground-truth point clouds (randomly sampled points projected with known orientations; Eq. (10) and the text in Section 4.2). No real cryo-EM images are used, and the forward model does not include CTF, noise, or unknown orientations. The abstract's statement that the method allows 3D reconstruction from cryo-EM images is therefore stronger than what the experiments support. The authors should either add experiments on realistic simulated cryo-EM images (with noise and unknown orientations) or explicitly scope the central claim to idealized projections with known orientations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.3] The atomic-structure RMSD is computed as a one-sided nearest-neighbor distance (argmin over model points for each ground-truth atom), which is not the standard symmetric RMSD; this should be stated and ideally supplemented with a symmetric metric such as CD or EMD.
  2. [Tables 1 and 4] The mapping from the rows of Table 1 to the hyperparameter rows of Table 4 is implicit; adding explicit row identifiers would make the experimental setup reproducible.
  3. [Figure 2] Neither axes nor scale bars are shown, so the reported RMSD values in angstroms cannot be visually verified; adding a common scale bar or showing the aligned ground truth in the same panels would help.
  4. [Appendix A.1] After Eq. (17) the notation switches from D(x(t),t) to D_theta(x(t),t) without comment; since the whole point is that the learned denoiser is an approximation, this distinction should be made explicit.
  5. [General reproducibility] The manuscript does not mention whether code or trained models will be released; given the many training and inference details, a public implementation would substantially aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: training and evaluation are held-out, and the DPS approximation is an explicit approximation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. A diffusion prior is trained on a training split (ShapeNet and Cryo2StructDataset), and all reconstruction benchmarks use held-out test structures, so the reported errors are not fitted to the evaluation targets. The posterior sampling recipe follows Chung et al.'s reconstruction guidance, whose delta approximation (Appendix A.1, Eq. 17) is stated openly as an approximation with uncontrolled error; an approximation is not a circular definition. The likelihoods used for guidance (Eqs. 10-14) are explicit forward models, and the ML baseline optimizes the same likelihoods, making the comparison meaningful. The manually selected guidance strengths alpha in Table 4 and the schedule adjustments in Appendix A.3 are hyperparameter choices, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and they do not make the central claim equivalent to its inputs by construction. The absence of an alpha=0 control is an experimental gap rather than a circularity under the definitions used here. No self-citations are load-bearing, and no known result is merely renamed. Therefore the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard diffusion-model background, the delta-point reconstruction guidance approximation from Chung et al., and dataset and forward-model assumptions: known orientations, exact forward models, and Gaussian-mixture coarse-graining as the biomolecular representation. These are reasonable but are not all tested against finer-grained alternatives. No new physical entities are postulated, so invented_entities is empty.

free parameters (6)
  • Guidance strength alpha = Per task: 4k, 5k, 10k, 40k, 60k, 80k (Table 4)
    Hand-selected per reconstruction task based on the amount of input information; results depend on it and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • Noise control beta(t) = 1/t, or 1/t for t > 0.15 then 0
    Chosen per task; the paper notes beta = 0 in the final steps gives sharper point clouds for low-count projections.
  • Number of time steps N = 40 (80 for Figure 2)
    Fixed for reconstruction tasks; more steps improve error (Figure 6) at higher compute cost.
  • Time discretization rho = 3
    Heuristic adopted from Karras et al.; stated to work well for 3D point clouds.
  • Coarse-graining mixture components = 1024
    Number of Gaussian components used to represent PDB structures as point clouds; also serves as the evaluation target.
  • Training noise schedule parameters (Pmean, Pstd, tmax) = e.g., Pmean = -4 or -1.2, Pstd = 1.2 for ShapeNet-Chair
    Selected per dataset and manually adjusted during training; affects prior quality.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Delta-point approximation p(x(0) | x(t)) = delta(D_theta(x(t), t) - x(0)) for reconstruction guidance
    Appendix A.1 Eq. 17, inherited from Chung et al. 2023; replaces the intractable posterior over clean data with a point mass, with uncontrolled approximation error.
  • domain assumption Score model s_theta approximates the true marginal score adequately over the sampled time range
    Sections 3.1 and A.2; all posterior sampling inherits residual score error from finite-capacity training.
  • domain assumption Projection orientations R_k are known exactly
    Section 3.2, Eqs. 10 to 11; real cryo-EM requires joint orientation estimation, which is not treated here.
  • domain assumption Gaussian mixture coarse-graining with 1024 shared-covariance components preserves the structures needed for medium-resolution reconstruction
    Section 4.1(C); both the prior and the evaluation target are built from such mixtures, so the representation is never tested against a finer-grained baseline.
  • standard math Standard diffusion SDE background (Anderson 1982 reverse process, Vincent 2011 denoising score matching equivalence)
    Sections 2 and A.2 rely on these unproved background results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion priors for Bayesian 3D reconstruction from incomplete measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YKWDOWVB

@misc{pith2026241214897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion priors for Bayesian 3D reconstruction from incomplete measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YKWDOWVB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14897}
}
read the original abstract

Many inverse problems are ill-posed and need to be complemented by prior information that restricts the class of admissible models. Bayesian approaches encode this information as prior distributions that impose generic properties on the model such as sparsity, non-negativity or smoothness. However, in case of complex structured models such as images, graphs or three-dimensional (3D) objects,generic prior distributions tend to favor models that differ largely from those observed in the real world. Here we explore the use of diffusion models as priors that are combined with experimental data within a Bayesian framework. We use 3D point clouds to represent 3D objects such as household items or biomolecular complexes formed from proteins and nucleic acids. We train diffusion models that generate coarse-grained 3D structures at a medium resolution and integrate these with incomplete and noisy experimental data. To demonstrate the power of our approach, we focus on the reconstruction of biomolecular assemblies from cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) images, which is an important inverse problem in structural biology. We find that posterior sampling with diffusion model priors allows for 3D reconstruction from very sparse, low-resolution and partial observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Results for five different reconstruction tasks. In all examples, the ML reconstruction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Outcomes for five cryo-EM reconstruction tasks. The top row shows the sparse input mea [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Unconditional samples from the diffusion prior trained on the ShapeNet-Chair dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Unconditional samples from the diffusion prior trained on the ShapeNet-Mixed dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unconditional samples from the diffusion prior trained on the CryoStruct dataset. Sampled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of reconstruction error in two scenarios over the number of time steps used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Anderson

    Brian D.O. Anderson. Reverse-time diffusion equation models . Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12 0 (3): 0 313--326, 1982. ISSN 0304-4149. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4149(82)90051-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304414982900515

    arXiv 1982

  2. [2]

    The protein data bank

    Helen M Berman, John Westbrook, Zukang Feng, Gary Gilliland, Talapady N Bhat, Helge Weissig, Ilya N Shindyalov, and Philip E Bourne. The protein data bank. Nucleic acids research, 28 0 (1): 0 235--242, 2000

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Monte Carlo guided diffusion for Bayesian linear inverse problems

    Gabriel Cardoso, Yazid Janati El Idrissi, Sylvain Le Corff, and Eric Moulines. Monte Carlo guided diffusion for Bayesian linear inverse problems . arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07983, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu

    Angel X. Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, Leonidas Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qixing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu. ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository . Technical Report arXiv:1512.03012 [cs.GR], Stanford University --- Princeton University --- Toyota Technological Institute at...

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Improving Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems using Manifold Constraints

    Hyungjin Chung, Byeongsu Sim, Dohoon Ryu, and Jong Chul Ye. Improving Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems using Manifold Constraints . In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=nJJjv0JDJju

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Diffusion Posterior Sampling for General Noisy Inverse Problems

    Hyungjin Chung, Jeongsol Kim, Michael Thompson Mccann, Marc Louis Klasky, and Jong Chul Ye. Diffusion Posterior Sampling for General Noisy Inverse Problems . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=OnD9zGAGT0k

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    On implementing 2D rectangular assignment algorithms

    David Frederic Crouse. On implementing 2D rectangular assignment algorithms . IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 52: 0 1679--1696, 2016. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:20649848

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Diffusion Models Beat GAN s on Image Synthesis

    Prafulla Dhariwal and Alexander Quinn Nichol. Diffusion Models Beat GAN s on Image Synthesis . In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=AAWuCvzaVt

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Linear Inverse Problem Solving: A Filtering Perspective

    Zehao Dou and Yang Song. Diffusion Posterior Sampling for Linear Inverse Problem Solving: A Filtering Perspective . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=tplXNcHZs1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Hyperdiffusion: Generating implicit neural fields with weight-space diffusion

    Ziya Erko c , Fangchang Ma, Qi Shan, Matthias Nie ner, and Angela Dai. Hyperdiffusion: Generating implicit neural fields with weight-space diffusion . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pp.\ 14300--14310, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric

    Matthias Fey and Jan Eric Lenssen. Fast graph representation learning with PyTorch Geometric . arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.02428, 2019

    1903 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Cryo2structdata: A large labeled cryo-em density map dataset for ai-based modeling of protein structures

    Nabin Giri, Liguo Wang, and Jianlin Cheng. Cryo2structdata: A large labeled cryo-em density map dataset for ai-based modeling of protein structures . Scientific Data, 11 0 (1): 0 458, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Diffusion Posterior Sampling is Computationally Intractable

    Shivam Gupta, Ajil Jalal, Aditya Parulekar, Eric Price, and Zhiyang Xun. Diffusion Posterior Sampling is Computationally Intractable . arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12727, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance , 2022

    Jonathan Ho and Tim Salimans. Classifier-Free Diffusion Guidance , 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models . In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pp.\ 6840--6851. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL htt...

    2020

  8. [16]

    Jonathan Ho, Tim Salimans, Alexey Gritsenko, William Chan, Mohammad Norouzi, and David J. Fleet. Video Diffusion Models , 2022

    2022

  9. [17]

    Estimation of Non-Normalized Statistical Models by Score Matching

    Aapo Hyv \"a rinen. Estimation of Non-Normalized Statistical Models by Score Matching . Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6 0 (24): 0 695--709, 2005. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v6/hyvarinen05a.html

    2005

  10. [18]

    Ingraham, Max Baranov, Zak Costello, Karl W

    John B. Ingraham, Max Baranov, Zak Costello, Karl W. Barber, Wujie Wang, Ahmed Ismail, Vincent Frappier, Dana M. Lord, Christopher Ng-Thow-Hing, Erik R. Van Vlack, Shan Tie, Vincent Xue, Sarah C. Cowles, Alan Leung, João V. Rodrigues, Claudio L. Morales-Perez, Alex M. Ayoub, R...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Barron, Pieter Abbeel, and Ben Poole

    Ajay Jain, Ben Mildenhall, Jonathan T. Barron, Pieter Abbeel, and Ben Poole. Zero-Shot Text-Guided Object Generation with Dream Fields . CoRR, abs/2112.01455, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.01455

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions

    Heewoo Jun and Alex Nichol. Shap-e: Generating conditional 3d implicit functions . arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02463, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Elucidating the Design Space of Diffusion-Based Generative Models

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the Design Space of Diffusion-Based Generative Models . In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openrev...

    2022

  14. [22]

    Analyzing and Improving the Training Dynamics of Diffusion Models , 2024

    Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Jaakko Lehtinen, Janne Hellsten, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Analyzing and Improving the Training Dynamics of Diffusion Models , 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization . CoRR, abs/1412.6980, 2014. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:6628106

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Latent space diffusion models of cryo-em structures

    Karsten Kreis, Tim Dockhorn, Zihao Li, and Ellen Zhong. Latent space diffusion models of cryo-em structures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14169, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. W. Kuhn. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem . Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2 0 (1-2): 0 83--97, 1955. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800020109. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nav.3800020109

    1955 doi

  18. [26]

    One-2-3-45: Any Single Image to 3D Mesh in 45 Seconds without Per-Shape Optimization

    Minghua Liu, Chao Xu, Haian Jin, Linghao Chen, Mukund Varma T, Zexiang Xu, and Hao Su. One-2-3-45: Any Single Image to 3D Mesh in 45 Seconds without Per-Shape Optimization . In A. Oh, T. Naumann, A. Globerson, K. Saenko, M. Hardt, and S. Levine (eds.), Advances in Neural Infor...

    2023

  19. [27]

    RePaint: Inpainting using Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models

    Andreas Lugmayr, Martin Danelljan, Andr \' e s Romero, Fisher Yu, Radu Timofte, and Luc Van Gool. RePaint: Inpainting using Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models . CoRR, abs/2201.09865, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.09865

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Diffusion Probabilistic Models for 3D Point Cloud Generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion Probabilistic Models for 3D Point Cloud Generation . CoRR, abs/2103.01458, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01458

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Pc2: Projection-conditioned point cloud diffusion for single-image 3d reconstruction

    Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Christian Rupprecht, and Andrea Vedaldi. Pc2: Projection-conditioned point cloud diffusion for single-image 3d reconstruction . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 12923--12932, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. NeRF: representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis . Commun. ACM, 65 0 (1): 0 99–106, dec 2021. ISSN 0001-0782. doi:10.1145/3503250. URL https://doi.org/...

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts, 2022

    Alex Nichol, Heewoo Jun, Prafulla Dhariwal, Pamela Mishkin, and Mark Chen. Point-e: A system for generating 3d point clouds from complex prompts, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in P ython . Journal of Machine Learni...

    2011

  25. [33]

    cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination

    Ali Punjani, John L Rubinstein, David J Fleet, and Marcus A Brubaker. cryoSPARC: algorithms for rapid unsupervised cryo-EM structure determination . Nature methods, 14 0 (3): 0 290--296, 2017

    2017

  26. [34]

    RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination

    Sjors HW Scheres. RELION: implementation of a Bayesian approach to cryo-EM structure determination . Journal of structural biology, 180 0 (3): 0 519--530, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    PyMOL , 2020

    LLC Schrödinger and Warren DeLano. PyMOL , 2020. URL http://www.pymol.org/pymol

    2020

  28. [36]

    Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Maheswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep Unsupervised Learning using Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics . In Francis Bach and David Blei (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 37 of Proceedings of...

    2015

  29. [37]

    Solving Inverse Problems with Latent Diffusion Models via Hard Data Consistency

    Bowen Song, Soo Min Kwon, Zecheng Zhang, Xinyu Hu, Qing Qu, and Liyue Shen. Solving Inverse Problems with Latent Diffusion Models via Hard Data Consistency . In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=j8hdRqOUhN

    2024

  30. [38]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-Based Generative Modeling through Stochastic Differential Equations . In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=PxTIG12RRHS

    2021

  32. [40]

    Methods for cryo-EM single particle reconstruction of macromolecules having continuous heterogeneity

    Bogdan Toader, Fred J Sigworth, and Roy R Lederman. Methods for cryo-EM single particle reconstruction of macromolecules having continuous heterogeneity . Journal of Molecular Biology, 435 0 (9): 0 168020, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Trippe, Luhuan Wu, Christian A

    Brian L. Trippe, Luhuan Wu, Christian A. Naesseth, David Blei, and John Patrick Cunningham. Practical and Asymptotically Exact Conditional Sampling in Diffusion Models . In ICML 2023 Workshop on Structured Probabilistic Inference & Generative Modeling , 2023 a . URL https://op...

    2023

  34. [42]

    Trippe, Jason Yim, Doug Tischer, David Baker, Tamara Broderick, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi S

    Brian L. Trippe, Jason Yim, Doug Tischer, David Baker, Tamara Broderick, Regina Barzilay, and Tommi S. Jaakkola. Diffusion Probabilistic Modeling of Protein Backbones in 3D for the motif-scaffolding problem . In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations...

    2023

  35. [43]

    A correlation-based approach to robust point set registration

    Yanghai Tsin and Takeo Kanade. A correlation-based approach to robust point set registration . In Computer Vision-ECCV 2004: 8th European Conference on Computer Vision, Prague, Czech Republic, May 11-14, 2004. Proceedings, Part III 8, pp.\ 558--569. Springer, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation

    Arash Vahdat, Francis Williams, Zan Gojcic, Or Litany, Sanja Fidler, Karsten Kreis, et al. Lion: Latent point diffusion models for 3d shape generation . Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 0 10021--10039, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    A Connection Between Score Matching and Denoising Autoencoders

    Pascal Vincent. A Connection Between Score Matching and Denoising Autoencoders . Neural Computation, 23 0 (7): 0 1661--1674, 2011. doi:10.1162/NECO_a_00142

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Diffmodeler: large macromolecular structure modeling for cryo-em maps using a diffusion model

    Xiao Wang, Han Zhu, Genki Terashi, Manav Taluja, and Daisuke Kihara. Diffmodeler: large macromolecular structure modeling for cryo-em maps using a diffusion model. Nature Methods, October 2024. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02479-0. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s4159...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Bayesian Diffusion Models for 3D Shape Reconstruction

    Haiyang Xu, Yu Lei, Zeyuan Chen, Xiang Zhang, Yue Zhao, Yilin Wang, and Zhuowen Tu. Bayesian Diffusion Models for 3D Shape Reconstruction . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 10628--10638, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Pointflow: 3d point cloud generation with continuous normalizing flows

    Guandao Yang, Xun Huang, Zekun Hao, Ming-Yu Liu, Serge Belongie, and Bharath Hariharan. Pointflow: 3d point cloud generation with continuous normalizing flows . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 4541--4550, 2019

    2019

  41. [49]

    Robust single-particle cryo-em image denoising and restoration

    Jing Zhang, Tengfei Zhao, ShiYu Hu, and Xin Zhao. Robust single-particle cryo-em image denoising and restoration. In ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp.\ 2995--2999, 2024. doi:10.1109/ICASSP48485.2024.10447135

    2024

  42. [50]

    Zhong, Tristan Bepler, Bonnie Berger, and Joseph H

    Ellen D. Zhong, Tristan Bepler, Bonnie Berger, and Joseph H. Davis. Cryodrgn: reconstruction of heterogeneous cryo-em structures using neural networks. Nature Methods, 18 0 (2): 0 176–185, February 2021 a . ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01049-4. URL http://dx.doi.org/...

    2021 doi

  43. [51]

    Zhong, Adam Lerer, Joseph H

    Ellen D. Zhong, Adam Lerer, Joseph H. Davis, and Bonnie Berger. Cryodrgn2: Ab initio neural reconstruction of 3d protein structures from real cryo-em images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp.\ 4066--4075, October 2021 b

    2021

  44. [52]

    3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion

    Linqi Zhou, Yilun Du, and Jiajun Wu. 3d shape generation and completion through point-voxel diffusion . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 5826--5835, 2021

    2021

  45. [53]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

  46. [54]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...

  47. [55]

    \@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...

  48. [56]

    ** ! Emergency stop

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.