Provable Efficiency of Guidance in Diffusion Models for General Data Distribution

Gen Li; Yuchen Jiao

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Provable Efficiency of Guidance in Diffusion Models for General Data Distribution

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Guidance provably lifts the average classifier confidence of diffusion-generated samples, for general data distributions.

desk verdict First general-distribution analysis of classifier-free guidance, but the main theorem rests on unproved higher-order derivative bounds and a metric chosen to fit the proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01382 v1 pith:6QMLWE2X submitted 2025-05-02 stat.ML cs.LGmath.STstat.TH

Gen Li , Yuchen Jiao This is my paper · ORCID

classification stat.MLcs.LGmath.STstat.TH MSC 60H1060J6068T07

keywords diffusionmodelsclassifier-freeguidancescore-basedgenerativemodelingreversestochasticdifferentialequationclassifierprobabilitysamplequalityItôcalculusdiscretizationerror

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 prove a general reason why adding guidance to a diffusion model raises sample quality, for essentially arbitrary data distributions rather than the one-dimensional or Gaussian cases studied before. The quality measure is the reciprocal of the classifier probability: guidance should make the average of $p_{c|X_{1-t}}(c|y)^{-1}$ decrease along the reverse diffusion, which means samples with high classifier confidence become more common on average. The core result is an exact infinitesimal identity: at each time $t$, the expected drop in this reciprocal equals $(w/t)\, p_{c|X_{1-t}}(c|Y^w_t)^{-1}\|\nabla\log p_{X_{1-t}|c}(Y^w_t|c)-\nabla\log p_{X_{1-t}}(Y^w_t)\|^2\,dt$, where $w$ is the guidance strength. A companion discrete-time bound shows that the conclusion survives discretization and bounded score-estimation error, so the proof is aimed at the setting practitioners actually use.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reciprocal classifier probability $φ_t(y)=p_{c|X_{1-t}}(c|y)^{-1}$. Lemma 2 shows that $φ_t$ is a martingale through the diffusion bridge: its conditional expectation at an earlier noisy time equals its value at a later noisy time, because the forward transition kernels are Gaussian and the classifier probability can be written through Bayes' rule as a ratio of unconditional and conditional densities. This martingale property makes the unguided reverse SDE have zero expected drift in $φ_t$. The proof then compares the unguided drift with the drift of the guided SDE using Itô's formula; the guidance term adds exactly the drift $\nabla\log p_{X_{1-t}|c}-\nabla\log p_{X_{1-t}}$, which by identity (17) is the negative gradient direction of $φ_t$ up to the factor $φ_t$. Hence the extra drift produces a strictly negative expected increment whose size is the squared norm of the score difference, scaled by $w/t$ and by $φ_t$.

What would settle it

Simulate the continuous-time guided reverse SDE with known scores for a simple non-Gaussian data distribution, such as a two-component Gaussian mixture with unequal covariance, using many noise seeds, and estimate $E[p_{c|X_1}(c|Y^w_1)^{-1}]$ for $w=0$ and several $w>0$. Theorem 1 predicts a strict decrease and a drop growing with the integrated squared score gap; seeing no decrease, or a non-monotone pattern in $w$, would falsify the average-improvement claim. A more direct check estimates both sides of the infinitesimal identity (11) at a fixed $t$ by Monte Carlo over a small time step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, is that guidance provably reduces the average reciprocal classifier probability along the guided reverse SDE. Concretely, for any $δ<t<1$ and any positive guidance weight $w$, conditional on the current point $Y^w_t$, the one-step-ahead expectation of $φ_{t+dt}(Y^w_{t+dt})$ is smaller than $φ_t(Y^w_t)$ by the non-negative quantity in (11). Since $φ$ is a decreasing function of the classifier probability, this says the guided process shifts probability mass toward samples the classifier finds more likely, on average, for every data distribution satisfying the paper's regularity bounds. The paper also proves Theorem 2, that the discrete-time classifier-free sampler with Lipschitz score estimates and mean-squared score error $ε^2_{\mathrm{score}}$ is within $O((1+w^2)L^2 d\log^3N/N + (1+w^4)L^2 R^2\log^4N/N^2 + (1+w^2)ε^2_{\mathrm{score}}\log N)$ in KL divergence of the continuous guided process, so the average-improvement statement carries over to practical implementations.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of the main infinitesimal identity assumes the reciprocal classifier probability and its derivatives up to fourth order grow at most exponentially in $\|y\|_2^2$ with constants depending on $t$, and Section 4.2 proves only the first-derivative bound, stating that the remaining bounds can be derived using similar techniques; if those higher-order growth bounds fail, the Itô-formula comparison that delivers the drop is not justified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every distribution satisfying the technical bounds, increasing the guidance weight $w$ monotonically decreases the expected reciprocal classifier probability along the reverse process, so average sample confidence improves.
The improvement is not uniform: individual samples can lose classifier confidence even while the population average improves, matching the GMM and ImageNet experiments in the paper.
Guidance has the largest per-time effect where $1/t$ is large, early in the reverse process, and where the conditional and unconditional score functions differ most, so low-confidence regions receive the strongest correction.
Discretization and score-estimation errors only perturb the result by an explicit KL term, so with enough reverse steps and accurate scores, the discrete classifier-free sampler inherits the average-improvement guarantee.
The metric $E[p_{c|X_1}(c|Y^w_1)^{-1}]$ responds to guidance in the same direction as Inception Score-style measures, giving a theoretical explanation for why classifiers see better samples after guidance.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension, not proved here, is the same argument for $E[\log p_{c|X}(c|Y)]$, the actual Inception Score weight; convexity of $-\log$ suggests the martingale mechanism could transfer, but the paper stops at the reciprocal.
The identity (11) implies an adaptive guidance schedule could set $w$ locally proportional to the score gap or to $φ_t$ itself, concentrating guidance where it helps most; the paper only treats the constant-$w$ case.
The martingale property of $φ_t$ may hold for any bridge with Gaussian transition kernels, which might make it a reusable tool for analyzing other guided generative processes beyond diffusion guidance.
Because the drop is inversely proportional to $t$, early-time guidance dominates; a testable prediction is that truncating guidance after intermediate times should retain most of the average improvement while preserving diversity, a consequence the authors do not draw explicitly.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

You should know two things about arXiv:2505.01382. First, it is the first paper I have seen that attempts a general-distribution analysis of classifier-free guidance, going beyond the Gaussian-mixture and one-dimensional interval cases in Wu et al., Chidambaram et al., and Bradley and Nakkiran. Second, the main theorem is not fully proved as written, because the proof leans on a set of exponential growth bounds for derivatives of the reciprocal classifier probability that the paper asserts but does not prove.

The genuine contribution is Lemma 2: the reciprocal classifier probability is a martingale along the forward process. That is a clean observation, and the authors use it to derive an infinitesimal comparison between guided and unguided reverse SDEs. The calculation in Section 4.3 is plausible, and the discrete-time robustness analysis in Appendix A is a useful bonus.

The soft spots are real but not fatal in spirit. The stress-test note is right: equations (21a)-(21c) require exponential bounds on derivatives up to fourth order, plus mixed time-space derivatives, to control the O(δ) remainders in (14)-(16). Section 4.2 only proves the first-gradient case and waves off the rest as "similar techniques." That is load-bearing, because if any of those bounds fail, the signed infinitesimal comparison in (11) is not established. I suspect the bounds are true under mild conditions on the data distribution, but they need to be written out before the theorem is credible. Also, Lemma 2 as stated allows τ=0, where it can fail for a symmetric Gaussian mixture when p(c|X0) vanishes on a positive-probability set. The proof only uses positive times, so this is a repairable statement-level flaw.

On circularity: yes, the reciprocal classifier probability is chosen specifically because its gradient is proportional to the CFG drift. The authors admit this. That makes the result a theorem about a technical metric, not about Inception Score or FID. Still, it is a legitimate first step, and the martingale fact is independent of the metric choice.

My verdict: this deserves a serious referee, but the paper should go back for major revision. The missing derivative bounds and the τ=0 issue need fixing before the main theorem can be accepted. I would bring it to a reading group as a maybe, mainly to discuss the martingale identity and the general strategy. I would not cite it in my own work until the gap is closed.

Recommendation: engage with it, but treat the main theorem as conditional.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies classifier-free guidance (CFG) in continuous-time diffusion models and claims a provable improvement for general data distributions. The central object is the reciprocal classifier probability φ_t(y) = p_{c|X_{1-t}}(c|y)^{-1}. Theorem 1 states that along the guided reverse SDE, E[φ_{t+dt}(Y^w_{t+dt}) | Y^w_t] - φ_t(Y^w_t) equals a nonpositive infinitesimal quantity proportional to w/t times the squared norm of the difference between conditional and unconditional scores, with an additional O(dt) term. The proof relies on Lemma 2, which asserts a martingale property for the reciprocal classifier probability under the unguided reverse process, and on Itô-Taylor expansions whose remainders are controlled by exponential growth bounds on φ and its derivatives. The paper also includes GMM and ImageNet experiments showing that guidance improves the average reciprocal classifier probability even though it does not improve every sample, and an appendix analyzes discrete-time approximation and score-estimation errors.

Significance. If the main theorem is established rigorously, this is a meaningful step beyond the existing case studies of isotropic Gaussian mixtures and one-dimensional interval-supported distributions: it identifies a scalar metric—the average reciprocal classifier probability—that guidance provably improves under general data distributions, while correctly predicting that uniform per-sample improvement fails. The underlying mechanism is attractive and elegant: the reciprocal classifier probability is a martingale along the class-conditioned reverse process, and the CFG extra drift is exactly aligned with the negative gradient of that martingale. The numerical experiments are consistent with the qualitative claim, and the paper is candid about the fact that individual samples may degrade. However, the theorem as currently written depends on a misstated lemma and on unproved high-order derivative bounds; both are repairable in principle, but until they are fixed the central claim is not fully established.

major comments (3)

[Lemma 2 and §4.1] Lemma 2 as stated in Eq. (13a) is false: for a fixed x, E_{X_τ|X_t=x}[p(c|X_τ)^{-1}] is not equal to p(c|X_t=x)^{-1} in general. The proof in §4.1 implicitly conditions on the class label as well, since the first line uses the density p_{X_τ|X_t,c}(x_τ|x,c) rather than p_{X_τ|X_t}(x_τ|x). The identity that the proof actually establishes is the class-conditional martingale property, which is the one needed for Eq. (14) when Y_t is the class-conditioned reverse process. The lemma should be restated with the conditioning on c made explicit, and the range should avoid τ=t or should require ε>0 so that p(c|X_0) is not allowed to vanish on a positive-probability set. As written, the statement is false and the proof does not prove the stated claim.
[§4.2–4.3, bounds (21a)–(21c)] The proof of Theorem 1 uses the O(δ) expansions (14)–(16), whose remainder terms are controlled by the exponential growth bounds (21a)–(21c) on p_{c|X_{1-t}}^{-1} and its derivatives up to fourth order, including mixed time-space derivatives. Section 4.2 proves only the first-gradient estimate (23b)–(23c) and states that the remaining bounds "can be derived using similar techniques". Moreover, (30)–(31) require finiteness of conditional exponential moments of ||Y_r||^2 under the reverse process, which is asserted but not shown. Because the entire signed infinitesimal comparison in Eq. (11) depends on these remainders being o(δ), the missing derivations are load-bearing; they must either be supplied in full or the theorem must be stated under explicit assumptions that guarantee them.
[Theorem 1, Eq. (11) vs. Eq. (12)] The proof establishes the conditional infinitesimal inequality (11), but the abstract and Section 3 conclude that guidance decreases the average reciprocal classifier probability over the whole generation process. This integrated conclusion requires an exchange of the infinitesimal limit with expectation over the law of Y^w_t and a proof that the right-hand side of (12) is finite on (δ,1). The paper should state the integrated result explicitly as a corollary: for any t>δ, E[φ_t(Y^w_t)] ≤ E[φ_δ(Y^w_δ)] = E[φ_t(Y_t)], with the difference equal to the integral of the nonnegative term in (11). Without this statement, the paper's main advertised conclusion is not formally derived.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (16)] In the first line of (16), the subscript "1−τ" in "∇ log p_{X_{1−τ}}(Y^w_t)" should be "1−t"; as printed, τ is undefined in that expression.
[Lemma 1, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) states "{Y_t} d = {X_{1−t}}" when Y_δ∼p_{X_{1−δ}|c}; this is only correct if X_t is understood to be the forward process conditioned on class c. Please state the conditional law explicitly to avoid confusion with the unconditional forward process.
[§4.2, inequalities (21a)–(21c)] The left-hand sides of (21a)–(21c) are tensors; the inequalities should use the appropriate tensor norm. In addition, the dependence of C_{t,k,R} on t should be made explicit, in particular how it behaves as t→1 or t→0.
[Appendix A, Eq. (40)] The displayed inequality in (40) appears to miss a factor of 2: the standard coupling argument gives Eμ[f]−Eν[f] ≤ Eμ[(f−1)1_{f>τ}]+(τ−1)TV, and with TV≤P(f>τ) this yields 2Eμ[(f−1)1_{f>τ}], not the expression shown. This does not affect Theorem 1, but the claimed practical transfer should be corrected.
[Assumption 2] The sentence before Assumption 2 says "which is stated in the following lemma"; it should say "assumption" rather than "lemma".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reciprocal-classifier-probability decrease is a genuine Itô computation, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The central result (Theorem 1, Eq. 11) is derived by comparing the Itô expansions (14) and (15) for the unguided and guided reverse SDEs. The negative drift in (16) follows algebraically from (17), ∇pc|X1−t(c|y)^{-1} = −pc|X1−t(c|y)^{-1}(∇log p_{X1−t|c}(y|c) − ∇log p_{X1−t}(y)), together with the CFG drift in (9). This is a standard Lyapunov/test-function argument: the paper explicitly states in Section 3 that the choice of pc|X1−t(c|y)^{-1} is 'primarily for technical considerations', and the theorem proves the signed derivative rather than assuming it. There is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no load-bearing self-citation (the cited prior work of the authors concerns convergence rates and is not used to justify the martingale identity), and no uniqueness argument imported from the authors. Lemma 2 is a self-contained Bayes-rule calculation. The proof does rely on unproved exponential-growth bounds (21a)-(21c), with Section 4.2 only proving the first-gradient case and stating that the remaining bounds 'can be derived using similar techniques'; this is a correctness/completeness risk, not a circularity, because the bounds do not encode the theorem's conclusion. Therefore no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted parameters are present; the guidance strength w is an input variable, and constants c0, c1 in the discretization schedule (35) are design choices. The analysis relies on a background SDE equivalence, unproven regularity bounds, and standard assumptions for the discretization result. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (3)

standard math Lemma 1: the reverse SDE initialized from pX_{1-δ} has the same distribution as the time reversal of the forward process (Song et al., 2021b).
Quoted from prior literature and used to justify the continuous-time setup and the martingale interpretation of the reverse process.
ad hoc to paper The reciprocal classifier probability pc|X_{1-t}(c|y)^{-1} and its derivatives up to fourth order satisfy exponential growth bounds (21a)-(21c).
Assumed with only a sketch for k=1; used to justify Itô expansions and the O(δ) limits in the proof of Theorem 1.
domain assumption Assumptions 1-3: score estimation error bounded, second moments bounded, score Lipschitz (for Theorem 2).
Standard assumptions for discretization analysis, used only in the supplementary robustness result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Provable Efficiency of Guidance in Diffusion Models for General Data Distribution." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QMLWE2X

@misc{pith2026250501382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Provable Efficiency of Guidance in Diffusion Models for General Data Distribution},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QMLWE2X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01382}
}

read the original abstract

Diffusion models have emerged as a powerful framework for generative modeling, with guidance techniques playing a crucial role in enhancing sample quality. Despite their empirical success, a comprehensive theoretical understanding of the guidance effect remains limited. Existing studies only focus on case studies, where the distribution conditioned on each class is either isotropic Gaussian or supported on a one-dimensional interval with some extra conditions. How to analyze the guidance effect beyond these case studies remains an open question. Towards closing this gap, we make an attempt to analyze diffusion guidance under general data distributions. Rather than demonstrating uniform sample quality improvement, which does not hold in some distributions, we prove that guidance can improve the whole sample quality, in the sense that the average reciprocal of the classifier probability decreases with the existence of guidance. This aligns with the motivation of introducing guidance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01382 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Experimental results on ImageNet dataset. left: Ratio of samples with improved classifier proba [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

and Sharma, R

Barratt, S. and Sharma, R. (2018). A note on the inception score. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01973

arXiv 2018
[2]

Benton, J., De Bortoli, V., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G. (2023). Nearly d -linear convergence bounds for diffusion models via stochastic localization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2023
[3]

and Nakkiran, P

Bradley, A. and Nakkiran, P. (2024). Classifier-free guidance is a predictor-corrector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09000

arXiv 2024
[4]

and Li, G

Cai, C. and Li, G. (2025). Minimax optimality of the probability flow ode for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09583

arXiv 2025
[5]

Chen, H., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2023). Improved analysis of score-based generative modeling: User-friendly bounds under minimal smoothness assumptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4735--4763. PMLR

work page 2023
[6]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Lee, H., Li, Y., Lu, J., and Salim, A. (2024). The probability flow ode is provably fast. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

work page 2024
[7]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Salim, A., and Zhang, A. R. (2022). Sampling is as easy as learning the score: theory for diffusion models with minimal data assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11215

arXiv 2022
[8]

Chidambaram, M., Gatmiry, K., Chen, S., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2024). What does guidance do? a fine-grained analysis in a simple setting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13074

arXiv 2024

Show all 38 references

[9]

T., and Shah, M

Croitoru, F.-A., Hondru, V., Ionescu, R. T., and Shah, M. (2023). Diffusion models in vision: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence

2023
[10]

and Nichol, A

Dhariwal, P. and Nichol, A. (2021). Diffusion models beat GANs on image synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:8780--8794

2021
[11]

Gupta, S., Cai, L., and Chen, S. (2024). Faster diffusion-based sampling with randomized midpoints: Sequential and parallel. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00924

2024 arXiv
[12]

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

2020
[13]

and Salimans, T

Ho, J. and Salimans, T. (2021). Classifier-free diffusion guidance. In NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Deep Generative Models and Downstream Applications

2021
[14]

Huang, Z., Wei, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024). Denoising diffusion probabilistic models are optimally adaptive to unknown low dimensionality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18784

2024
[15]

Hyv \"a rinen, A. (2005). Estimation of non-normalized statistical models by score matching. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 6(4)

2005
[16]

Hyv \"a rinen, A. (2007). Some extensions of score matching. Computational statistics & data analysis , 51(5):2499--2512

2007
[17]

Karras, T., Aittala, M., Kynk \"a \"a nniemi, T., Lehtinen, J., Aila, T., and Laine, S. (2024). Guiding a diffusion model with a bad version of itself. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:52996--53021

2024
[18]

Lee, H., Lu, J., and Tan, Y. (2022). Convergence for score-based generative modeling with polynomial complexity. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

2022
[19]

Lee, H., Lu, J., and Tan, Y. (2023). Convergence of score-based generative modeling for general data distributions. In International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory , pages 946--985. PMLR

2023
[20]

and Cai, C

Li, G. and Cai, C. (2024). Provable acceleration for diffusion models under minimal assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.23285

2024 arXiv
[21]

Li, G., Cai, C., and Wei, Y. (2025). Dimension-free convergence of diffusion models for approximate gaussian mixtures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05300

2025 arXiv
[22]

Li, G., Huang, Y., Efimov, T., Wei, Y., Chi, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024a). Accelerating convergence of score-based diffusion models, provably. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

2024
[23]

and Jiao, Y

Li, G. and Jiao, Y. (2024). Improved convergence rate for diffusion probabilistic models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13738

2024 arXiv
[24]

Li, G., Wei, Y., Chi, Y., and Chen, Y. (2024b). A sharp convergence theory for the probability flow odes of diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02320

2024 arXiv
[25]

and Yan, Y

Li, G. and Yan, Y. (2024). Adapting to unknown low-dimensional structures in score-based diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14861

2024 arXiv
[26]

Pang, T., Xu, K., Li, C., Song, Y., Ermon, S., and Zhu, J. (2020). Efficient learning of generative models via finite-difference score matching. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33:19175--19188

2020
[27]

Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., and Chen, M. (2022). Hierarchical text-conditional image generation with CLIP latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125

2022 arXiv
[28]

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B. (2021). High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models

2021
[29]

Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., and Ommer, B. (2022). High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 10684--10695

2022
[30]

L., Ghasemipour, K., Gontijo Lopes, R., Karagol Ayan, B., Salimans, T., et al

Saharia, C., Chan, W., Saxena, S., Li, L., Whang, J., Denton, E. L., Ghasemipour, K., Gontijo Lopes, R., Karagol Ayan, B., Salimans, T., et al. (2022). Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys...

2022
[31]

Salimans, T., Goodfellow, I., Zaremba, W., Cheung, V., Radford, A., and Chen, X. (2016). Improved techniques for training gans. Advances in neural information processing systems , 29

2016
[32]

Sohl-Dickstein, J., Weiss, E., Maheswaranathan, N., and Ganguli, S. (2015). Deep unsupervised learning using nonequilibrium thermodynamics. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2256--2265

2015
[33]

Song, Y., Durkan, C., Murray, I., and Ermon, S. (2021a). Maximum likelihood training of score-based diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:1415--1428

2021
[34]

and Ermon, S

Song, Y. and Ermon, S. (2019). Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32

2019
[35]

P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B

Song, Y., Sohl-Dickstein, J., Kingma, D. P., Kumar, A., Ermon, S., and Poole, B. (2021b). Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations. International Conference on Learning Representations

2021
[36]

Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., and Wojna, Z. (2016). Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2818--2826

2016
[37]

Vincent, P. (2011). A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders. Neural computation , 23(7):1661--1674

2011
[38]

Wu, Y., Chen, M., Li, Z., Wang, M., and Wei, Y. (2024). Theoretical insights for diffusion guidance: A case study for gaussian mixture models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01639

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

and Sharma, R

Barratt, S. and Sharma, R. (2018). A note on the inception score. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.01973

arXiv 2018

[2] [2]

Benton, J., De Bortoli, V., Doucet, A., and Deligiannidis, G. (2023). Nearly d -linear convergence bounds for diffusion models via stochastic localization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

work page 2023

[3] [3]

and Nakkiran, P

Bradley, A. and Nakkiran, P. (2024). Classifier-free guidance is a predictor-corrector. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09000

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

and Li, G

Cai, C. and Li, G. (2025). Minimax optimality of the probability flow ode for diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.09583

arXiv 2025

[5] [5]

Chen, H., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2023). Improved analysis of score-based generative modeling: User-friendly bounds under minimal smoothness assumptions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 4735--4763. PMLR

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Lee, H., Li, Y., Lu, J., and Salim, A. (2024). The probability flow ode is provably fast. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 36

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Chen, S., Chewi, S., Li, J., Li, Y., Salim, A., and Zhang, A. R. (2022). Sampling is as easy as learning the score: theory for diffusion models with minimal data assumptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11215

arXiv 2022

[8] [8]

Chidambaram, M., Gatmiry, K., Chen, S., Lee, H., and Lu, J. (2024). What does guidance do? a fine-grained analysis in a simple setting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13074

arXiv 2024