Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 14 references

Data Generation without Function Estimation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deterministic inverse gradient flow transports uniform points to the data distribution.

desk verdict Genuinely new estimation-free sampling idea; the central theorem is unproven because Lemma 7's L∞≤L2 step is false—still worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08239 v1 pith:A343WGNR submitted 2025-07-11 cs.LG math-phmath.MPmath.OCstat.ML

Hadi Daneshmand , Ashkan Soleymani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGmath-phmath.MPmath.OCstat.ML
keywords estimation-freesamplinginversegradientdescentattractive-repulsiveinteractionpotentialmean-fieldlimitWassersteinflowgenerativemodelingscore-freegenerationparticlesystems
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 data generation does not require estimating any density-dependent function such as a score. The proposed method, Estimation-Free Sampling (EFS), moves a finite set of training points by ordinary gradient descent on an attractive-repulsive interaction energy until they spread uniformly over a ball or sphere, then runs the inverse gradient map on a newly drawn uniform point. If the argument is right, the inverse map returns that point to the original data distribution in the mean-field limit, and the whole procedure uses only deterministic point updates, with no neural networks, noise injection, or score estimation. This would matter because score estimation is computationally hard and suffers from the curse of dimensionality, so an estimation-free route could sidestep a major practical bottleneck of modern generative models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the attractive-repulsive power-law interaction potential $W^{(s)}_{\epsilon}(x-y)=\|x-y\|^2 + \tfrac{1}{s}(\|x-y\|^2+\epsilon)^{s/2}$, summed over pairs of points to form the empirical energy $E^{(\epsilon)}_n$. The quadratic term attracts particles and the inverse-norm term repels them, so the equilibrium is a uniform shell or ball rather than a collapsed cluster. Its role is twofold: forward gradient descent on this energy is a mean-field Wasserstein gradient flow with a known uniform steady state, and the same energy makes the backward inverse-gradient optimization convex, so the inverse map exists and is computable by ordinary gradient descent. The paper also relies on the identity $\|F(\mu)-F(\nu)\|^2_{L^2}=\mathrm{MMD}^2(\mu,\nu)$ at $s=d-2$ (Theorem 6), which turns convergence of the empirical measure into convergence of the transport fields.

What would settle it

Take a two-component Gaussian mixture in two dimensions, run EFS with increasing numbers of points and finer gradient steps, and compare the empirical law of the generated samples to the true mixture; if the law does not converge to the mixture as the number of points grows while the step size shrinks, the claimed inverse transport does not hold for the implemented algorithm.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a transport map built purely from gradients of an explicit pairwise energy. The authors define the attractive-repulsive power-law interaction potential $W^{(s)}_{\epsilon}(x-y)=\|x-y\|^2 + \tfrac{1}{s}(\|x-y\|^2+\epsilon)^{s/2}$ and study gradient descent on the empirical energy $E^{(\epsilon)}_n$ over the training points. In the mean-field limit this forward flow is a Wasserstein gradient flow whose steady state, for suitable exponents $s$, is the uniform measure on a ball or sphere. The key structural result is that the flow is reversible in a usable sense: the backward step is a convex proximal problem, and the reversed-time ODE (9) transports the near-uniform state back to the original data measure as $n \to \infty$ (Theorem 5). Sampling therefore reduces to running inverse gradient descent on a single new point, and the trajectory of that point follows the data geometry.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee rests on the discrete gradient-descent steps of the implemented algorithm faithfully reproducing a continuous idealized flow, and the paper proves the limit as the number of points grows to infinity without supplying a finite-step, finite-$n$ error bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Sampling from any target distribution reduces to three deterministic steps: forward optimization, drawing a uniform point, and backward optimization, so no score function, network, or noise is needed.
  • In the mean-field limit, forward optimization provably yields the uniform ball or sphere distribution for suitable $s$, so the starting measure for sampling is easy to draw from.
  • The inverse map provably converges to the target measure as $n \to \infty$, so the method generalizes rather than merely reconstructing the training points.
  • The backward step is convex, so each proximal solve has a unique solution and can be computed with constant-step-size gradient descent.
  • Interpolation in the latent uniform space maps to curved paths that respect data density and avoid low-density regions, as demonstrated on Gaussian mixtures, Swiss roll, and MNIST.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's asymptotic claim, a natural stress test is whether the backward trajectory with finite $n$ on a high-curvature density still matches the target; the paper offers only qualitative evidence on Swiss roll, not a quantitative finite-$n$ error bound.
  • The same inverse-flow idea could in principle apply to any energy functional whose equilibrium is an easily sampled distribution, such as negative entropy with a Gaussian equilibrium, though the convexity of the inverse step would need to be re-proved for each new energy.
  • The paper notes that the exponent $s=d-2$ causes numerical overflow in high dimensions, such as raw MNIST with $d=784$, so designing potentials with dimension-independent exponents is a direct test of whether EFS scales beyond low-dimensional latent spaces.
  • If the mean-field convergence in MMD controls the rate, then the method's sample complexity may inherit a curse of dimensionality; quantifying that rate would decide whether EFS can compete with score-based models in higher dimensions.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 'estimation-free sampling' (EFS), a generative method built on a forward gradient-descent step that transports an empirical data distribution toward a uniform measure on a ball or sphere (via an attractive-repulsive Riesz interaction energy), followed by a backward/inverse gradient-descent step that maps a uniform draw back to the data distribution. The authors claim that this deterministic particle procedure avoids score estimation, neural-network training, and noise injection. The theoretical part relies on mean-field limits from Duerinckx and Serfaty and from Frank and Matzke to argue that the forward flow converges to a uniform equilibrium and that the reversed-time ODE transports the uniform measure back to the data measure. Experiments on Gaussian mixtures, Swiss roll, and MNIST (in an autoencoder latent space) are presented as qualitative validation.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would be significant: it would connect potential theory with generative modeling and offer a conceptually simple, deterministic alternative to score-based methods. The paper's strengths are its concrete algorithm, its explicit use of recent results on interacting-particle systems, and its qualitative demonstrations. However, the main theoretical guarantee in Theorem 5 rests on a proof that contains a false norm inequality and several unsupported steps, and the experiments do not operate in the regime covered by the theorem. The significance is therefore conditional on a substantial repair of the proof and a better alignment of theory and practice.

major comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Lemma 7, Eq. (33)] The proof of Lemma 7 bounds the term t sup_y ||F_s^(n)(y) - F_s(y)|| by t ε_n, where ε_n is the L2 integral of the squared error. The sentence 'boundedness of L∞ norm by L2' is false for functions on R^d without additional regularity or decay assumptions, and the manuscript supplies none. Since this bound is the only mechanism that turns MMD convergence of the empirical measures into uniform convergence of the vector fields, the Grönwall argument does not establish trajectory convergence, and Theorem 5 is unproven as written.
  2. [Appendix C, proof of Theorem 5, Eq. (42), and Appendix B, Theorem 6] The proof invokes MMD convergence of µ_t^(n) to µ_t and uses Theorem 6 to identify the squared L2 error of the vector fields with MMD²(µ_t, µ_t^(n)). However, Theorem 6 requires µ and ν to have equal first moments; the empirical measure µ_t^(n) built from n i.i.d. samples has a first moment that differs from that of µ_t by O_p(n^{-1/2}), and this mismatch is not handled. In addition, Eq. (28) sets ∥w∥² (bK(w))² = bK(w), which is only true up to the normalization constant appearing in the Fourier transform of the Riesz kernel; as written the identity is false. These issues undermine the error estimate that feeds Lemma 7.
  3. [Section 3.2, Theorem 5 and Algorithm 1] The theorem considers the continuous-time reversed ODE (9) and simultaneously assumes that y^(n)_t has law µ_t, but a trajectory generated by (9) cannot have law µ_t at all times unless it follows the forward mean-field flow, and the initial condition of (9) is not specified. Moreover, Algorithm 1 uses finite parameters γ, k, β, T and a regularized potential with parameter ϵ, and no discretization or finite-parameter error analysis connects this algorithm to the continuous ODE (9). Consequently, the implemented method is not covered by the asymptotic guarantee.
  4. [Section 3.2, Lemma 9 and Corollary 10] Lemma 9 is stated in the main text as 'the distribution of y_t is µ_0', while its proof in Appendix C.1 proves that the distribution is µ_t; the statement and its proof are inconsistent. Corollary 10's proof appeals to Lemma 11 and Lemma 7, but Lemma 7 concerns convergence of ODEs as n → ∞ and is not a time-reversal tool, and the lim_{ε→0} F_{t-ε}(y_{t-ε}) manipulation is informal. The time-reversal property of a deterministic flow is elementary, but as written the corollary does not establish the intended mean-field transport, and the subsequent proof of Theorem 5 depends on this step.
  5. [Section 4, Table 1] The theoretical statements for the backward transport and for the uniform ball limit are made for s = d - 2, which in d = 2 equals s = 0; however, Table 1 uses s = 1 for the Gaussian mixture and Swiss roll experiments. For MNIST, EFS is applied in the 15-dimensional latent space of a separately trained convolutional autoencoder, so the autoencoder itself is a function-estimation step and the final images are decoded latent samples rather than samples from the original data distribution. These choices mean that the experiments do not directly validate the theorem's assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (16)] The kernel K is defined with a factor 1/s, but the limiting case s = 0, which appears as the logarithm in the potential W, is not defined for K; the text should specify the kernel in that case or state that s > 0 throughout.
  2. [Appendix D, proof of Proposition 1] The proof uses the symbol m for the interaction exponent while the main text and Algorithm 1 use s; the notation should be unified.
  3. [References] The reference list contains a duplicated entry for 'Frank, Frank, Frank, and Matzke' with the same title and venue; the bibliography should be consolidated.
  4. [Figure 8 caption] The caption says the interpolation is between images 7 and 2 but describes the transition as 7 → 9 → 2; please clarify whether 9 is an intermediate generated image or a typo.
  5. [Section 3.2, paragraph after Corollary 4] The sentence 'the measure µ_t converges to a uniform distribution as t → ∞' is stated without proof; Corollary 4 only states weak convergence of the empirical measure µ_t^(n) in the double limit n → ∞, t → ∞, so the statement should be made precise by citing the appropriate Carrillo–Shu or Frank–Matzke result for the mean-field limit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The uniform-to-data generative guarantee reduces by construction to time-reversal of the forward gradient flow; the mean-field convergence is external, but the inverse-transport claim is definitional.

  1. self definitional [Section 2 (Proposition 1) and Section 3.2 (Corollary 10); Theorem 5 assumption]
    "Even more interesting is the inverse of gradient descent: assuming GD converges to the minimizer of En, inverse GD maps points uniformly distributed on a sphere (or disk) to an arbitrary empirical distribution supported on a finite set of points. ... The above optimization is convex with solution y∗i = x(k−1)i for all i ∈ [n], as long as the learning rate γ is sufficiently small. ... The above dynamics transports µt to µ0 as long as µt is not a steady state of (38)."

    The backward step in Algorithm 1 is explicitly constructed as the proximal inverse of the forward GD update, and Proposition 1 proves that its solution is exactly the previous forward iterate (y*_i = x^(k-1)_i). Corollary 10 then states that the reversed-time ODE dyt/d¯t = Ft(yt) transports µt back to µ0; this is the definition of time-reversing the deterministic forward flow dy/dt = −Ft(yt) that sends µ0 to µt. Given unique trajectories, the reversed flow is the inverse transport map by construction, not by independent derivation. Theorem 5 assumes y(n)_t has law µt and concludes y(n)_0 has law µ0 through this reversed flow, so the uniform-to-data 'prediction' is the inverse-flow property built into the method.

full rationale

The paper's central theoretical claim, Theorem 5, is not backed by a fitted parameter or by a load-bearing self-citation chain: the mean-field forward convergence (Theorem 2), the global minimizer structure (Theorem 3), and the MMD convergence in the proof are all cited from external work by Duerinckx–Serfaty, Carrillo–Shu, and Frank–Matzke, and the only self-citations (Daneshmand et al. 2023; Zhang et al. 2021a,b) occur in related-work context and are not load-bearing. However, the headline generative direction 'inverse gradient descent transports a uniform distribution to an arbitrary data distribution' is the time-reversal of the forward flow by construction: Proposition 1 defines the backward proximal problem as the inverse of one GD step, and Corollary 10 asserts that reversing the mean-field ODE transports µt to µ0, which is exactly what an inverse flow must do. Thus the uniform-to-data prediction reduces to the forward data-to-uniform convergence plus deterministic invertibility, rather than being a new independent result. This is a self-definitional circularity, warranting a score of 6 on the provided scale. Separately, the proof of Theorem 5 contains a non-circular correctness gap: Lemma 7 bounds a uniform sup norm by an L2 norm in equation (33), an inequality that is false without regularity assumptions, and Theorem 6's MMD identity requires equal first moments while the empirical measure has an O_p(n^{-1/2}) first-moment mismatch. These are validity concerns, not circularity, so they do not further raise the circularity score but should be weighed in any correctness assessment.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Every experimental run depends on hand-set values of s, epsilon, gamma, k, beta, T, and n; these are not derived from the theory, and the 2D experiments choose s outside the theorem's required s=d-2. The theoretical claim rests on external mean-field and minimizer theorems plus regularity and discretization assumptions that are not fully proven. The paper introduces no new postulated entities.

free parameters (7)
  • Interaction exponent s = 1 (Gaussian mixtures), d-2 (Swiss roll, MNIST)
    Controls the repulsive term and determines the steady-state geometry (ball versus sphere); the theorem requires s=d-2, but 2D experiments use s=1, outside the stated theorem regime.
  • Regularization epsilon = 0.001
    Softens the repulsive singularity; hand-chosen in Table 1 for all datasets.
  • Forward step size gamma = 0.1 (Gaussian mixtures), 0.05 (MNIST, Swiss roll)
    Set by hand; affects the number of steps to convergence and the validity of the inverse proximal step.
  • Forward iterations k = 31 (Gaussian mixtures), 120 (MNIST, Swiss roll)
    Chosen so that the forward distribution appears uniform in the figures.
  • Backward learning rate beta = 0.1 (Gaussian mixtures), 0.01 (MNIST), 0.1 (Swiss roll)
    Hyperparameter of the backward proximal optimizer; hand-selected.
  • Backward inner iterations T = 300
    Number of proximal gradient steps per trajectory time step; chosen to approximate convergence of the inner loop.
  • Number of samples n = 400 (Gaussian mixtures), 15000 (MNIST), 500 (Swiss roll)
    Dataset size used in the experiments; affects the quality of the mean-field approximation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Mean-field limit of the interacting particle system: the empirical measure of particles under ODE (5) converges weakly to the solution of the continuity equation (8) as n tends to infinity (Duerinckx and Serfaty, 2020).
    Invoked in Section 3.1 to justify replacing the finite-particle system by the macroscopic gradient flow; the paper does not re-prove this external theorem.
  • domain assumption The steady state of the limiting energy E is the unique (up to translation) global minimizer, uniform on a ball (Carrillo and Shu, 2023) or on a sphere (Frank and Matzke, 2025) with finite closed-form radius.
    Used in Corollary 4 to conclude the forward dynamics converge to a uniform distribution; also cited in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Regularity and finite-energy assumptions on the data measure: mu_0 and mu_t are regular or continuous measures and E(mu_0) is finite, as required by Theorem 5 and Lemma 11.
    The theorem is stated for continuous measures, whereas the algorithm operates on a discrete empirical distribution; the paper relies on standard empirical convergence as n grows.
  • ad hoc to paper Lemma 11's regularity bound: sup_y integral of ||y-x||^{-d} d mu_t(x) is bounded by a constant depending on E(mu_0) and d.
    This bound is needed to apply Lemma 7 in the proof of Theorem 5; if the bound or its proof is wrong, the convergence of the backward dynamics is not established.
  • ad hoc to paper The discrete Algorithm 1 with finite parameters gamma, beta, T faithfully approximates the continuous reversed-time ODE (9).
    The theory is continuous-time and asymptotic, while the implemented algorithm is a finite-step proximal scheme; the paper assumes the connection without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Generation without Function Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A343WGNR

@misc{pith2026250708239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Generation without Function Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A343WGNR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08239}
}
read the original abstract

Estimating the score function (or other population-density-dependent functions) is a fundamental component of most generative models. However, such function estimation is computationally and statistically challenging. Can we avoid function estimation for data generation? We propose an estimation-free generative method: A set of points whose locations are deterministically updated with (inverse) gradient descent can transport a uniform distribution to arbitrary data distribution, in the mean field regime, without function estimation, training neural networks, and even noise injection. The proposed method is built upon recent advances in the physics of interacting particles. We show, both theoretically and experimentally, that these advances can be leveraged to develop novel generative methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Convergence of the empirical distribution with optimization. Scatter plot of gradient descent iterates x (k) i , defined in (3), initialized at x (0) i drawn from a Gaussian mixture distribution. Different mixture components (modes) are distinguished by color. As k evolves, the points become uniformly distributed on the circle. 2 Method Given the support of an empirical distribution over points x1, . . . , xn ∈ R d … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sampling: ⋆: generated sample; Left: x (0) i i.i.d. ∼ mix￾ture Gaussian; Right: x (k) i obtained by forward optimization. Colors: mixture components. The location of the new sample is updated by Backward Optimization 1 Find Algorithm details in Appendix A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interpolation in Latent Space. Colored points are samples drawn from a Gaussian mixture model (left) and their positions after forward optimization (right). The ⋆s are the generated sample y in EFS (right), and their location after applying Algorithm 1 (left). The straight line in the latent space (right) is transformed into a curved trajectory (left) that aligns with the data distribution. Colors correspond to diff… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forward convergence for Swiss roll. Scatter plot of gradient descent iterates x (k) i , defined in (3), initialized at x (0) i drawn from a Swiss roll with noise level 0.2. As k evolves, the points become uniformly distributed akin to 2d example of Gaussian mixture in …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sampling: The black ⋆ is the generated sample y (0) ; Left: x (0) i i.i.d. ∼ Swiss roll with noise level 0.2; Right: x (k) i obtained by forward optimization. Colors: mixture components. The location of the new sample is updated by Backward Optimization 1 [PITH_FULL_I…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Interpolation in Latent Space. Colored points are samples drawn from a Swiss roll (left) and their positions after forward optimization (right). The ⋆s are the generated sample y (0) in EFS (right), and their location after applying Algorithm 1 (left). The straight lin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Generative MNIST. First row: Images generated by EFS. These are obtained by applying forward and backward optimization in the latent space of an autoencoder, followed by decoding into the image space. Second row: The closest decoded training samples {x (0) i } n i=1 fo…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interpolation Comparison. In the interpolation between images 7 and 2, the intermediate autoencoder outputs do not resemble valid digits (1st row), whereas our method produces a transition via 7 → 9 → 2 (2nd row). On the right, we visualize the interpolation paths cros…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Recall the Fourier transform of the radial function∥x∥−s is C∥w∥−d+s) for 0 < s < dwhere C is a constant depending on d and s [Frank and Matzke, 2025]

    (63) (54) ≲ (1 + E(µ0))2 (64) 19 Data Generation without Function Estimation A PREPRINT We will use the above bound to complete the proof. Recall the Fourier transform of the radial function∥x∥−s is C∥w∥−d+s) for 0 < s < dwhere C is a constant depending on d and s [Frank and Matzke, 2025]. Using the Parseval’s theorem, (50) translates to the following ine...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    More precisely, the theorem implies that for all µ, νsuch that F (µ) = F (ν) = 0, the following holds: 0 = ∥F (µ) − F (ν)∥2 L2 = MMD(µ, ν)

    14 Data Generation without Function Estimation A PREPRINT An application of the above theorem recovers the result of Carrillo and Shu [2023]: all steady states µ satisfying F (µ) = 0 are global minimizers of E (up to translation). More precisely, the theorem implies that for all µ, νsuch that F (µ) = F (ν) = 0, the following holds: 0 = ∥F (µ) − F (ν)∥2 L2...

    work page 2023

  3. [6]

    The Sharp Erd\H{o}s-Tur\'an Inequality

    Ruiwen Shu and Jiuya Wang. The sharp erd˝os-turán inequality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.11006, 2021b. Arthur Gretton, Karsten M Borgwardt, Malte J Rasch, Bernhard Schölkopf, and Alexander Smola. A kernel two-sample test. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 13(1):723–773,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [7]

    Suppose Ft(y) is almost surely L-Lipschitz in y

    Define ϵn := Z ∥Ft(y) − F (n) t (y)∥2dy. Suppose Ft(y) is almost surely L-Lipschitz in y. If limn→∞ ϵn = 0, then R T 0 ∥yt − y(n) t ∥2dt converges to 0 as n → ∞. Proof. We start by writing down ODEs in the integral form and consider their difference, ∥y(n)(t) − y(t)∥ = Z t 0 h F (n) s (y(n)) − Fs(y) i ds = Z t 0 h F (n) s (y(n)) − Fs(y(n)) i ds + Z t 0 h ...

    work page 2008

  5. [8]

    MMD. Define MMD : Ω × Ω → R+ as MMD2(µ, ν) = Z K(x − y)(µ(x) − ν(x))dx(µ(y) − ν(y))dy, with K(∆) := 1 s∥∆∥s (16) where MMD denotes the Maximum Mean Discrepancy between two measures µ and ν. Suppose that bK and b∆ denote the Fourier transforms of the functions K(x) and ∆(x) := µ(x) − ν(x), respectively. Viewing MMD as a convolution and Plancherel’s theorem...

    work page 2025

  6. [9]

    T is not implementable as it requires µt, the solution of the continuity equation (8)

    Recall that Theorem 3 states that µt converges to the uniform distribution, from which new samples can be drawn. T is not implementable as it requires µt, the solution of the continuity equation (8). We show that the empirical distribution µ(n) t , defined over the point set {x1(t), . . . , xn(t)}, yields a transport map T (n) (as defined above) that conv...

    work page 1982

  7. [12]

    (42) As proven in the next lemma, Ft(y) is Lipschitz

    To establish this convergence, we use Theorem 1 of [Duerinckx and Serfaty, 2020], which shows that µ(n) t converges to µt in MMD as n → ∞, namely lim n→∞ MMD(µt, µ(n) t ) = 0, for β >0. (42) As proven in the next lemma, Ft(y) is Lipschitz. This Lipschitz continuity, together with the result above, ensures that the conditions in Lemma 7 are satisfied. Thus...

    work page 2020

  8. [14]

    Without this reduction, computing W (s), as required in EFS, becomes numerically infeasible

    Importantly, the encoder serves as a dimensionality reduction mechanism. Without this reduction, computing W (s), as required in EFS, becomes numerically infeasible. E.2 Training Protocol We trained the autoencoder on the MNIST dataset using the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 10−3, a batch size of 250, and for 120 epochs. The training loss, measur...

    work page 2019

Show all 14 references
  1. [2012]

    12 Data Generation without Function Estimation A PREPRINT Appendix A Algorithm For completeness, we present the EFS algorithm in Algorithm 2 and its forward and backward optimiza- tion subroutines in Algorithm 3 and Algorithm 4, respectively. Remarkably, even when the distribu...

    1997

  2. [2013]

    A family of explicit minimizers for interaction energies

    Ruiwen Shu. A family of explicit minimizers for interaction energies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14666,

    arXiv

  3. [2015]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.13456,

    2011 arXiv

  4. [2017]

    Stochastic particle gradient descent for infinite ensembles

    Atsushi Nitanda and Taiji Suzuki. Stochastic particle gradient descent for infinite ensembles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05438,

    arXiv

  5. [2019]

    Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner

    URL https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/ file/bdbca288fee7f92f2bfa9f7012727740-Paper.pdf. Yann LeCun, Léon Bottou, Yoshua Bengio, and Patrick Haffner. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE, 86(11):2278–2324,

    2019

  6. [2023]

    Field matching: an electrostatic paradigm to generate and transfer data

    Alexander Kolesov, Manukhov Stepan, Vladimir V Palyulin, and Alexander Korotin. Field matching: an electrostatic paradigm to generate and transfer data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.02367,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.