Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 44 references

On the Statistical Capacity of Deep Generative Models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A finite neural network fed Gaussian noise always outputs light-tailed samples, so common deep generative models are not universal generators.

desk verdict Correct concentration theorems and a genuinely new diffusion reduction, but the paper's 'not universal / arbitrarily small errors' claim needs a metric-specific lower bound that is not supplied. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.07763 v1 pith:VJBGJ3X7 submitted 2025-01-14 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LGmath.STstat.TH

Edric Tam , David B. Dunson This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.AIcs.LGmath.STstat.TH MSC 60E1568T07
keywords deepgenerativemodelssub-Gaussianconcentrationheavy-taileddistributionsofmeasureuniversalapproximationadversarialnetworksvariationalautoencodersdiffusion
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

Deep generative models are usually assumed to become universal samplers given enough data and network capacity. This paper shows the opposite: if the latent variables are Gaussian, then any finite feed-forward network produces samples whose centered distribution is sub-Gaussian, i.e., light-tailed, with a dimension-free concentration bound. The same conclusion holds, with weaker tail bounds, for log-concave and strongly log-concave latents, for latents on positively curved manifolds, and, via a reduction argument, for denoising diffusion models. The paper argues this matters because heavy-tailed targets are common in finance, anomaly detection, and Bayesian posterior sampling, where these models will systematically underestimate uncertainty and miss extreme events.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is concentration of measure for Lipschitz functions. A finite feed-forward network is Lipschitz; the proof splits $\hat f$ into coordinate functions, applies a scalar isoperimetric inequality to each, and then assembles the coordinates with an Orlicz-norm lemma to bound every unit projection. The isoperimetric inputs are the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality for Gaussian latents, log-concave Lipschitz concentration with Cheeger's constant for log-concave latents, strong-log-concavity bounds for strongly log-concave latents, and the Gromov–Levy inequality for positively curved latent manifolds. For diffusion models, the load-bearing reduction is to view the iterative update as a product-Lipschitz map acting on the augmented Gaussian vector $(X_T,\epsilon_1,\ldots,\epsilon_T)$; the added noise becomes part of the input rather than a break in the Lipschitz composition, so the same Gaussian concentration principle applies.

What would settle it

Train a Gaussian-latent GAN, VAE, or diffusion model on data with a known power-law tail, such as bivariate Cauchy, and estimate the tail index of generated samples with a Hill estimator for increasing width, depth, and training set size. The paper predicts the generated tail stays exponential at every size; observing the estimated tail index move toward the Cauchy's power-law value as capacity grows would refute the claim that the limitation cannot be overcome.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a negative universality result: for any finite feed-forward neural network $\hat f$ with Lipschitz constant $L$, if $z$ is Gaussian then the random vector $\hat f(z)-\mathbb{E}[\hat f(z)]$ is sub-Gaussian, meaning every one-dimensional projection satisfies $\Pr(|\langle u,\hat f(z)-\mathbb{E}[\hat f(z)]\rangle|\ge t)\le 2\exp(-t^2/C_p^2)$ with $C_p^2=C^2\,p\,L^2\|\Sigma\|$. Since this holds for every member of the network class regardless of width, depth, or training data, GANs and VAEs with Gaussian latents cannot generate heavy-tailed samples. The paper extends the mechanism to log-concave latents (sub-exponential tails), strongly log-concave latents (sub-Gaussian), latents on manifolds of positive Ricci curvature (sub-Gaussian via the Gromov–Levy inequality), and to denoising diffusion models by rewriting the full sampling trajectory as a single Lipschitz map of an augmented Gaussian vector. The authors take this as evidence that the folklore belief in universal approximation by deep generative models is not valid in a tail-relevant sense, and illustrate the gap with simulations on a bivariate Cauchy distribution and on S&P 500 and Dow Jones daily returns.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a trained generator has a fixed finite Lipschitz constant and that approximation quality is judged in a tail-sensitive way; the theorems bound each fixed network but do not by themselves prove that the gap to a heavy-tailed target survives as the Lipschitz constant is allowed to grow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any GAN or VAE trained with Gaussian latent variables will produce centered samples with sub-Gaussian tails, so its extreme values will be systematically shorter than those of a heavy-tailed target, regardless of model size or training set.
  • The same limitation carries over to denoising diffusion models with Gaussian initialization: the full reverse trajectory is a Lipschitz function of an augmented Gaussian vector, so the final sample inherits light tails.
  • For log-concave latent variables the output is sub-exponential rather than sub-Gaussian: still light-tailed, but able to produce moderately larger extremes than the Gaussian-latent case.
  • These results imply that defaulting to Gaussian latents is a consequential modeling choice, not a harmless normalization; applications in finance, anomaly detection, and Bayesian posterior approximation need latent priors or generators that can produce heavy tails.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The diffusion-model reduction suggests a template for other iterative generative methods: any sampler whose reverse steps are Lipschitz maps of Gaussian noise should fall under the same light-tail restriction whenever the whole trajectory map is Lipschitz.
  • A direct design implication of the concentration results is that replacing Gaussian latents with heavy-tailed latents, such as Student-t, in otherwise unchanged architectures should restore power-law tails in generated samples, because the sub-Gaussian mechanism no longer applies once the latent is not log-concave.
  • The dimension-free nature of the Gaussian bound points to a testable prediction: in high-dimensional heavy-tailed targets, the gap between generated and true extremes should be at least as severe as in low dimensions, since the concentration constant does not improve with latent dimension.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the statistical properties of deep generative models that push forward simple latent distributions through finite feed-forward neural networks. The main results (Theorems 1–5) prove that, for a fixed network with finite Lipschitz constant L, the centered generated random vector satisfies one-dimensional sub-Gaussian (or sub-exponential) concentration bounds, with constants proportional to L (and, for diffusion models, to the product of stepwise Lipschitz constants). The theorems cover Gaussian, log-concave, and strongly log-concave latent variables, latent variables on positively curved manifolds, and a diffusion-model reduction via an augmented-Gaussian composition argument. The paper interprets these concentration bounds as showing that GANs, VAEs, and diffusion models are not universal generators and cannot approximate heavy-tailed targets with arbitrarily small error, and it supports this interpretation with simulations on Cauchy and financial data.

Significance. The mathematical core of the paper is correct and non-vacuous: the concentration inequalities are standard but are applied carefully to generative architectures, and the diffusion reduction in Supplementary Material C is a genuine and elegant composition argument. The dimension-free nature of the Gaussian and strong-log-concave bounds is a useful observation. However, the advertised conclusion—that the results 'debunk' the possibility of arbitrarily small sampling error for sufficiently large networks—is not established by the theorems, because the constants in all bounds grow with the Lipschitz constant L, which is free to grow with network size. The paper therefore needs either a metric-specific lower bound that is uniform in L or a substantial reframing of the central claim. With that revision, the paper would be a valuable theoretical contribution to the generative-modeling literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, paragraph after Theorem 1] The sentence 'Since this result can be applied to any member of F, this limitation cannot be overcome by increasing training data or enlarging the neural network' is not a consequence of Theorem 1. The sub-Gaussian parameter is C_p^2 = C^2 p L^2 ||Σ||, which depends on the network's Lipschitz constant L, and L generally grows with network complexity. The theorem gives no lower bound on the approximation error to a heavy-tailed target that is uniform over L. In fact, for a metric such as Kolmogorov–Smirnov distance, the conclusion is false: for any continuous target F, the maps g_A(x) = F^{-1}(Φ(x)) for |x| ≤ A, extended suitably outside, are Lipschitz with constants growing in A and satisfy KS(g_A#N(0,1), F) ≤ 1 - Φ(A) → 0 as A → ∞. Since finite ReLU networks can approximate each such g_A arbitrarily well in distribution, there is a sequence of finite feed-forward networks in F with arbitrarily small KS error to any continuous target, including heavy-tailed ones. The same issue applies to Theorem 5, whose constant is proportional to (∏_{τ=1}^T L_τ)^2, with no lower bound as T or network size grows.
  2. [Abstract and Section 1 (Introduction)] The paper's central advertised claim is that the results 'debunk' the belief that sufficiently large generative models can achieve arbitrarily small sampling error for any continuous target. The formal theorems, however, concern a fixed network with a finite Lipschitz constant and bound the tails of the centered generated distribution; they do not rule out distributional approximation at the metric level as L grows. The manuscript should either (i) fix a specific notion of approximation error and prove a uniform lower bound that holds over all networks in F, or (ii) explicitly soften the conclusion to: for any fixed trained network with finite Lipschitz constant, the generated distribution is sub-Gaussian (or sub-exponential) and therefore cannot exactly reproduce a heavy-tailed target. Without such a revision, the strong statement in the abstract and introduction is unsupported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Materials, Proof of Theorem 3 (B.4)] The proof states 'Substituting C^2_{p,γ} = C^2√pL^2||Σ||/γ into the bound' but the theorem statement defines C^2_{p,γ} = C^2 p L^2||Σ||/γ; the factor should be p, not √p.
  2. [Section 2.1] The notation 'all entries in the matrices W L l=1 and vectors bL l=1 are finite' is garbled; it should read 'all entries in the matrices W_1, ..., W_L and vectors b_1, ..., b_L are finite.'
  3. [Supplementary Materials, Section C] The notation Np(T+1)(0, I) and Id pT is confusing; these should be written as N_{p(T+1)}(0, I) and I_{pT} (or described in words) to avoid ambiguity about dimensions.
  4. [Figures 1–4] The captions reference figures that appear not to be included in the submitted manuscript text; the compiled version should include the actual plots.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivations are direct applications of external concentration inequalities; the unsupported 'cannot overcome' inference is a logical gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's main derivations are self-contained applications of established external results. Theorem 1 follows from the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality (Sudakov-Tsirel'son and Borell) combined with Lipschitz composition and a standard lemma bounding sub-Gaussian Orlicz norms of linear functionals; the constant C_p^2 = C^2 p L^2 ||Sigma|| is not fitted to any data. Theorems 2 and 3 similarly use Gromov-Milman log-concave concentration and Wainwright's strongly log-concave inequality. Theorem 4 applies the Gromov-Levy inequality on manifolds with positive Ricci curvature. Theorem 5 is a reduction argument: the diffusion sampler is rewritten as a single Lipschitz transformation of an augmented Gaussian vector, and the product of Lipschitz constants arises from the composition, not from estimation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The only author self-citation (Winter et al., 2024) is contextual and not load-bearing. The paper's broader claim that the limitation 'cannot be overcome by increasing training data or enlarging the neural network' is not actually entailed by the fixed-L theorems, since the constants grow with L and no metric-specific lower bound is given; however, that is an unsupported inference or correctness gap, not circularity. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters and no new entities. It relies on standard concentration-of-measure results from the literature and on the definition of finite feed-forward networks.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Gaussian isoperimetric inequality (Theorem 6 in the supplementary)
    Used to prove Theorem 1: any Lipschitz function of a Gaussian vector concentrates, giving sub-Gaussian tails for the generated output.
  • standard math Log-concave Lipschitz concentration inequality (Theorem 7 in the supplementary)
    Used to prove Theorem 2: Lipschitz functions of log-concave vectors are sub-exponential.
  • standard math Strongly log-concave Lipschitz concentration inequality (Theorem 8 in the supplementary)
    Used to prove Theorem 3: strongly log-concave latents give sub-Gaussian tails.
  • standard math Gromov-Levy inequality (Theorem 9 in the supplementary)
    Used to prove Theorem 4: on manifolds with positive Ricci curvature, Lipschitz functions concentrate with sub-Gaussian tails.
  • domain assumption Finite feed-forward neural networks are Lipschitz (Proposition 1)
    All theorems rely on the generator having a finite Lipschitz constant, which holds for finite networks with Lipschitz activations such as ReLU, sigmoid, and tanh.
  • domain assumption Diffusion sampling can be written as a deterministic Lipschitz function of an augmented Gaussian vector (Supplementary section C)
    This is a proof technique introduced in the paper; it is valid because the injected noises are included in the augmented vector and each update step is Lipschitz.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the Statistical Capacity of Deep Generative Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJBGJ3X7

@misc{pith2026250107763,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the Statistical Capacity of Deep Generative Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJBGJ3X7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.07763}
}
read the original abstract

Deep generative models are routinely used in generating samples from complex, high-dimensional distributions. Despite their apparent successes, their statistical properties are not well understood. A common assumption is that with enough training data and sufficiently large neural networks, deep generative model samples will have arbitrarily small errors in sampling from any continuous target distribution. We set up a unifying framework that debunks this belief. We demonstrate that broad classes of deep generative models, including variational autoencoders and generative adversarial networks, are not universal generators. Under the predominant case of Gaussian latent variables, these models can only generate concentrated samples that exhibit light tails. Using tools from concentration of measure and convex geometry, we give analogous results for more general log-concave and strongly log-concave latent variable distributions. We extend our results to diffusion models via a reduction argument. We use the Gromov--Levy inequality to give similar guarantees when the latent variables lie on manifolds with positive Ricci curvature. These results shed light on the limited capacity of common deep generative models to handle heavy tails. We illustrate the empirical relevance of our work with simulations and financial data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.07763 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparisons between Cauchy samples and synthetic samples from a generative adver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparisons between actual returns from Standard and Poor’s 500 and Dow Jones [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Synthetic samples from generative adversarial networks with varying depth and latent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparisons between Cauchy samples and synthetic samples from a denoising diffu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all := #1 'mid.sentence := #2 '...

  2. [2]

    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 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Barron, A. R. (1993). Universal approximation bounds for superpositions of a sigmoidal function. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 39, 930--945

    work page 1993

  4. [4]

    , Leach, A

    Bond-Taylor, S. , Leach, A. , Long, Y. & Willcocks, C. G. (2021). Deep generative modelling: a comparative review of vaes, gans, normalizing flows, energy-based and autoregressive models. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 44, 7327--7347

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Borell, C. (1975). The B runn- M inkowski inequality in G auss space. Inventiones Mathematicae 30, 207--216

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    , Lugosi, G

    Boucheron, S. , Lugosi, G. & Massart, P. (2013). Concentration Inequalities: A Nonasymptotic Theory of Independence . Oxford University Press

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Chen, Y. (2021). An almost constant lower bound of the isoperimetric coefficient in the KLS conjecture. Geometric and Functional Analysis 31, 34--61

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Child, R. (2021). Very deep VAE s generalize autoregressive models and can outperform them on images. In 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Austria, May 3-7, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Cybenko, G. (1989). Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function. Mathematics of Control, Signals and Systems 2, 303--314

    1989

  2. [10]

    Davidson, T. R. , Falorsi, L. , Cao, N. D. , Kipf, T. & Tomczak, J. M. (2018). Hyperspherical variational auto-encoders. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, UAI 2018, Monterey, California, USA, August 6-10, 2018 . AUAI Press

    2018

  3. [11]

    & Brossard, R

    Dehaene, D. & Brossard, R. (2021). Re-parameterizing VAE s for stability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.13739

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Doersch, C. (2016). Tutorial on variational autoencoders. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05908

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    & Osterrieder, J

    Eckerli, F. & Osterrieder, J. (2021). Generative adversarial networks in finance: an overview. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06364

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fan, J. , Ma, C. & Zhong, Y. (2021). A Selective Overview of Deep Learning . Statistical Science 36, 264 -- 290

    2021

  7. [15]

    , Kremer, S

    Floto, G. , Kremer, S. & Nica, M. (2023). The tilted variational autoencoder: Improving out-of-distribution detection. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    , Pouget-Abadie, J

    Goodfellow, I. , Pouget-Abadie, J. , Mirza, M. , Xu, B. , Warde-Farley, D. , Ozair, S. , Courville, A. & Bengio, Y. (2020). Generative adversarial networks. Communications of the ACM 63, 139--144

    2020

  9. [17]

    Gromov, M. (1986). Isoperimetric inequalities in R iemannian manifolds. Asymptotic Theory of Finite Dimensional Spaces 1200, 114--129

    1986

  10. [18]

    & Milman, V

    Gromov, M. & Milman, V. D. (1983). A topological application of the isoperimetric inequality. American Journal of Mathematics 105, 843--854

    1983

  11. [19]

    , Jain, A

    Ho, J. , Jain, A. & Abbeel, P. (2020). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 6840--6851

    2020

  12. [20]

    Hornik, K. (1991). Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks. Neural Networks 4, 251--257

    1991

  13. [21]

    , Chen, Z

    Hu, T. , Chen, Z. , Sun, H. , Bai, J. , Ye, M. & Cheng, G. (2018). Stein neural sampler. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03545

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    , Lee, Y

    Jambulapati, A. , Lee, Y. T. & Vempala, S. S. (2022). A slightly improved bound for the KLS constant. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11644

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kingma, D. P. & Welling, M. (2014). Auto- E ncoding variational B ayes. In 2nd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2014, Banff, AB, Canada, April 14-16, 2014

    2014

  16. [24]

    Kingma, D. P. , Welling, M. et al. (2019). An introduction to variational autoencoders. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 12, 307--392

    2019

  17. [25]

    & Lehec, J

    Klartag, B. & Lehec, J. (2022). Bourgain’s slicing problem and KLS isoperimetry up to polylog. Geometric and Functional Analysis 32, 1134--1159

    2022

  18. [26]

    Ledoux, M. (1997). On T alagrand's deviation inequalities for product measures. ESAIM: Probability and statistics 1, 63--87

    1997

  19. [27]

    Ledoux, M. (2001). The Concentration of Measure Phenomenon. American Mathematical Soc

    2001

  20. [28]

    & Talagrand, M

    Ledoux, M. & Talagrand, M. (2013). Probability in Banach Spaces: Isoperimetry and Processes. Springer Science & Business Media

    2013

  21. [29]

    Lee, Y. T. & Vempala, S. S. (2018). The K annan-- L ovasz-- S imonovits conjecture. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.03465

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lu, Y. & Lu, J. (2020). A universal approximation theorem of deep neural networks for expressing probability distributions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33, 3094--3105

    2020

  23. [31]

    & Miot, A

    Oriol, B. & Miot, A. (2021). On some theoretical limitations of generative adversarial networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.10915

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    & Sokolov, V

    Polson, N. & Sokolov, V. (2023). Generative AI for B ayesian computation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14972

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Rezende, D. J. , Mohamed, S. & Wierstra, D. (2014). Stochastic backpropagation and approximate inference in deep generative models. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning, E. P. Xing & T. Jebara, eds., vol. 32 of Proceedings of Machine Learning...

    2014

  26. [34]

    , Daniilidis, K

    Rybkin, O. , Daniilidis, K. & Levine, S. (2021). Simple and effective VAE training with calibrated decoders. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, M. Meila & T. Zhang, eds., vol. 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. PMLR

    2021

  27. [35]

    , De Bortoli, V

    Salmona, A. , De Bortoli, V. , Delon, J. & Desolneux, A. (2022). Can push-forward generative models fit multimodal distributions? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35, 10766--10779

    2022

  28. [36]

    , Seeb \"o ck, P

    Schlegl, T. , Seeb \"o ck, P. , Waldstein, S. M. , Schmidt-Erfurth, U. & Langs, G. (2017). Unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks to guide marker discovery. In Information Processing in Medical Imaging, M. Niethammer, M. Styner, S. Aylward, H. Zhu,...

    2017

  29. [37]

    Sudakov, V. N. & Tsirel'son, B. S. (1978). Extremal properties of half-spaces for spherically invariant measures. Journal of Soviet Mathematics 9, 9--18

    1978

  30. [38]

    Talagrand, M. (1996). A new look at independence. The Annals of Probability 24, 1 -- 34

    1996

  31. [39]

    Vershynin, R. (2018). High- D imensional Probability: An Introduction with Applications in Data Science . Cambridge University Press

    2018

  32. [40]

    & Scaman, K

    Virmaux, A. & Scaman, K. (2018). Lipschitz regularity of deep neural networks: A nalysis and efficient estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31

    2018

  33. [41]

    Wainwright, M. J. (2019). High- D imensional Statistics: A Non- A symptotic Viewpoint . Cambridge University Press

    2019

  34. [42]

    , Knobloch, R

    Wiese, M. , Knobloch, R. & Korn, R. (2019). Copula & marginal flows: Disentangling the marginal from its joint. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.03361

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    , Campbell, T

    Winter, S. , Campbell, T. , Lin, L. , Srivastava, S. & Dunson, D. B. (2024). Emerging directions in B ayesian computation. Statistical Science 39, 62--89

    2024

  36. [44]

    Yang, Y. , Li, Z. & Wang, Y. (2022). On the capacity of deep generative networks for approximating distributions. Neural Networks 145, 144--154

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.