Unifying Generative Models with Path Integrals

Ramon Winterhalder

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Unifying Generative Models with Path Integrals

T0 review · 2 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 Generative modeling reduces to one master path integral, and the paper's MSRJD reformulation turns sampler error, score error, and architecture design into perturbative computations with a validated one-loop correction.

desk verdict The one-loop sampler correction is real and well validated; the unification framing is broader than the evidence, but the core result deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12438 v1 pith:V5RTPWCC submitted 2026-08-12 cs.LG hep-phstat.ML

Ramon Winterhalder This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGhep-phstat.ML

keywords pathintegralsgenerativemodelsdiffusionnormalizingflowsMSRJDformalismloopcorrectionsscorematchingequivariantdrifts

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

Generative modeling, the paper argues, is a single calculation: a path integral over latent trajectories weighted by an Onsager–Machlup action, with normalizing flows, diffusion models, conditional flow matching, Schrödinger bridges, VAEs, and GANs distinguished only by how that integral is evaluated. The reformulation is productive, not just taxonomic. Recasting the integral in Martin–Siggia–Rose–Janssen–de Dominicis (MSRJD) form separates free linear probability transport from nonlinear interactions and yields a diagrammatic expansion whose leading term corrects deterministic samplers for stochastic fluctuations by integrating two auxiliary ODEs along the classical trajectory, at no stochastic-sampling cost. If the paper is right, sampler accuracy, score quality, and symmetry-aware architecture design become perturbative computations with a documented error order.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the master path integral with the Onsager–Machlup action $$S_{\rm OM}[z]=\$int_0^{1}$ dt\, \frac{\|\dot z(t)-f_{\rm rev}(z(t),t)\|^2}{$2g^{2}$(t)},$$ which weighs each latent trajectory by how far its velocity deviates from the reverse drift. Rewriting it in Martin–Siggia–Rose–Janssen–de Dominicis (MSRJD) form promotes the stochastic process to a first-order field theory: the state $z$ is paired with a response field $\hat z$, nonlinear drift terms become single-response vertices, and the free quadratic action supplies a causal response propagator and a noise-induced covariance. These propagators carry the perturbative expansion: the covariance satisfies the Lyapunov equation (4.8), the tadpole contraction sources the mean shift (4.12), and their combination at the endpoint is Eq. (4.13), the one-loop sampler correction. The same objects also transport score errors to the endpoint through the response propagator and organize equivariant drift operators by scaling degree.

What would settle it

Take a small trained diffusion model on tabular or point-cloud data, integrate the drift ODE together with the Lyapunov equation (4.8) and the mean-shift equation (4.12) under the model's actual noise schedule, and compare the corrected second moment with an Euler–Maruyama simulation of the reverse SDE; if the correction does not reduce the tree-level gap to the predicted $\mathcal{O}(g^4)$ level, the one-loop claim does not transfer to learned scores.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that every major generative architecture—normalizing flows, continuous normalizing flows, diffusion models, conditional flow matching, Schrödinger bridges, variational autoencoders, and generative adversarial networks—is a different evaluation rule for one master path integral. In its MSRJD form the integral separates free, Gaussian probability transport from interactions generated by nonlinear drift; expanding in the diffusion strength $g^2$ yields the one-loop sampler correction $$\langle O[z(0)]\rangle = O(z_{\rm cl}(0)) + \partial_i O(z_{\rm cl}(0))\,\delta m_i(0) + \tfrac12 \partial_i\partial_j O(z_{\rm cl}(0))\,C_{ij}(0) + O($g^{4}$),$$ where $z_{\rm cl}$ is the deterministic trajectory, $\delta m$ solves the mean-shift equation (4.12), and $C$ solves the Lyapunov equation (4.8). The paper validates this formula on a free Ornstein–Uhlenbeck drift and on nonlinear drifts, cutting a 53% tree-level error to 1.6% in one dimension and reaching 1.1% error in 24 dimensions. Imperfect learned scores enter as linear insertions, leading to a response-weighted score-matching objective, and symmetry constraints turn drift design into an operator expansion with effective-field-theory power counting.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative claims assume that the first correction term dominates, which holds when noise is mild relative to the drift curvature; the test drifts were chosen that way, but whether it holds for real diffusion models at their usual noise levels with a learned score is left open.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any deterministic sampler built from a drift ODE can be upgraded to reproduce the endpoint mean and covariance of the stochastic reverse process at order $g^2$ by integrating the Lyapunov equation (4.8) and the mean-shift equation (4.12) alongside the classical trajectory.
Score-matching training acquires a derived time weighting $\lambda_{\rm resp}(t)\propto g^4(t)\|G(0,t)\|^2$, replacing empirically tuned loss schedules with a propagator-weighted one that emphasizes times whose score errors most affect the endpoint.
For point-cloud-like data with $S_N\times O(m)$ symmetry, the drift is fixed up to degree three by two free coefficients and eleven interaction couplings; the fitted values predict the size of degree-five operators through the measured parameter $\varepsilon$.
The loop integrand identifies where in sampling time the deterministic sampler diverges, so a limited budget of stochastic simulation steps can be placed where they buy the most accuracy.
If the correction survives contact with a learned score, training and sampling can be separated: train once, then obtain stochastic-level observables from the deterministic trajectory at negligible extra cost.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper leaves implicit a direct test of its response-weighted objective: train the same diffusion architecture with $\lambda_{\rm resp}(t)\propto g^4(t)\|G(0,t)\|^2$ and with standard weightings, and compare endpoint error; this would measure whether the propagation structure really dictates training effort.
Because the score-mismatch insertion is the object a discriminator estimates, one could measure $\delta f$ empirically from a noise-level classifier and compare the predicted endpoint shift $\int G(0,t)\delta f\,dt$ with the measured one; the paper does not perform this diagnostic.
A natural transfer is to fit the eleven degree-three equivariant couplings on real permutation-rotationally invariant data, such as point clouds or particle jets, and check whether the measured $\varepsilon$ suppresses degree-five operators as predicted; the paper provides the enumeration but not this confrontation.
For very large latent dimension the full $O(d^2)$ covariance propagation will dominate; observable-specific adjoint propagation or low-rank factorization of $C(t)$ is a practical route implied by Eq. (4.13) but not developed in the paper.

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

Short version: the paper's concrete payload is Eq. (4.13), the O(g^2) correction to deterministic samplers, with the Lyapunov and Riccati implementation behind it. That part is well derived and convincing. The abstract's "master action" framing is mostly repackaging in the early sections, but Section 4 justifies the paper.

What's actually new: the loop correction itself, the mean-shift equation, the response-weighted score objective (Eq. 4.19), and the EFT operator enumeration for equivariant drifts. The numerical validation is genuinely good: the free theory reproduces the exact Gaussian endpoint, the cubic-drift residual has the expected O(g^4) slope, and the 24-dimensional equivariant test exercises the matrix machinery. The code is public, and the cited closest prior work [22] is discussed fairly.

Soft spots, in proportion: the paper trains no network, and Section 6 explicitly leaves open whether the correction survives contact with a learned score. The stress-test note lands. Tables 2-4 use globally contracting drifts with mild curvature and g^2 up to 1.4, while standard VP diffusion schedules can have g^2 around 10-20 and learned score Hessians grow near the data manifold. So the abstract's headline "53% to 1.6%" is established only for the toy drifts, not for the intended application. That does not invalidate the derivation, but it means the central transfer claim is unproven.

The response-weighted objective is a plausible first-principles proposal, not a tested method. The derivation uses an uncorrelated-error approximation that needs checking, and the paper says a usable weighting for nonlinear drifts would require averaging over the data flow. Fine as a proposal, but it should be labeled more carefully.

Who this is for: ML theory and methods people working on deterministic samplers and sampling corrections. It deserves serious peer review. A responsible referee should require either a demonstration on a learned score or an honest reframing of the claims. I would cite Eq. (4.13) and the Lyapunov implementation; I would not cite the unification taxonomy as more than a survey.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a path-integral formulation of generative models. It derives a master Onsager–Machlup action for reverse-time diffusion, shows that normalizing flows, diffusion models, flow matching, Schrödinger bridges, variational autoencoders, and generative adversarial networks arise as limits or evaluation principles of this action, recasts the action in MSRJD form, and uses the resulting diagrammatic expansion to derive a one-loop correction to deterministic samplers. The correction consists of an endpoint covariance C(0) from a Lyapunov equation and a tadpole mean shift δm(0), both integrated alongside the classical trajectory, so that Eq. (4.13) gives the leading correction to expectations of smooth observables. The paper validates the correction on an exactly solvable Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process, a one-dimensional cubic drift against an independent Fokker–Planck reference, and a 24-dimensional equivariant drift against Euler–Maruyama simulation. It also derives a response-weighted score-matching objective from imperfect-score insertions and proposes an EFT-style equivariant drift expansion with a predicted coupling hierarchy.

Significance. The MSRJD derivation is explicit and self-contained, and the numerical validation is careful: the free-theory case is exact, the interacting cases are compared with independent Fokker–Planck and Euler–Maruyama references, grid-refinement and Monte Carlo errors are reported, and the residual scaling is consistent with O(g^4). The code is publicly available, and the high-dimensional equivariant example demonstrates the machinery beyond one dimension. The response-weighted objective and the EFT hierarchy are falsifiable proposals, which is a strength. The main open risk is transfer: the numerical evidence is confined to globally contracting toy drifts, and the paper's own Section 6 states that the learned-score question remains open. If that transfer is established, the loop correction would be a practical deterministic alternative for low-to-moderate noise regimes.

major comments (2)

[§4.4, §6, Tables 2–4] The numerical validation of the one-loop correction is restricted to globally contracting drifts, and Section 4.4 itself gives the validity condition as g^2 times the curvature of the reverse drift being small along the classical trajectory. In a standard variance-preserving diffusion schedule, g^2(t) can be large near the prior and the learned score Hessian grows near the data manifold, so this condition is not satisfied in the intended application. Section 6 explicitly leaves open whether the correction survives contact with a learned score. Because the abstract presents the correction as a property of deterministic samplers rather than of the toy drifts tested, this gap is load-bearing: please add a demonstration on a variance-preserving schedule with an exact or learned score (for example a Gaussian-mixture score), or re-scope the central claim to the low-to-moderate diffusion regime.
[§4.4, Eqs. (4.27)–(4.31)] The hybrid Lyapunov–Riccati propagation is introduced to cure numerical degeneracies in focusing and defocusing regimes, but none of the numerical examples in Tables 2–4 exhibits a caustic: all test drifts are globally contracting. The claim that the hybrid scheme remains well conditioned whenever one regime dominates is therefore untested. A simple defocusing or mixed-sign example (e.g., a drift with at least one repulsive direction) is needed to support the stated range of validity of the method.

minor comments (5)

[§5.1, after Eq. (5.3)] The phrase 'withtheld fixed' appears to contain a typo; it should read 'with the latent dimension d fixed.'
[§4.3, Table 3 caption] The Fokker–Planck reference is labeled 'exact'; since it is a finite-difference solution, the caption should say 'numerically converged reference' (the text already reports the grid-refinement error, but the caption alone is misleading).
[§4.2, Eq. (4.19)] The response-weighted score-matching objective is derived under the assumption that score errors at different times are approximately uncorrelated and after averaging over error directions; this assumption should be restated at the equation so that Eq. (4.19) is not read as an unconditional theorem.
[§4.3, Tables 3–4] The interacting validations test only the quadratic observable ⟨∥z∥²⟩. Adding a non-polynomial observable (for example exp(β·z) or z⁴) would directly test the O(g^4) truncation of Eq. (4.13) beyond its first two moments.
[Figure 4] The shaded 'reference precision' band is not defined in the caption for the free and equivariant panels; please specify whether it is a 1σ or 2σ band and how it was computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the one-loop sampler correction is derived from the MSRJD action and validated against independent references, not fitted or defined into existence.

full rationale

The central formula, Eq. (4.13), is obtained by expanding the latent path about the classical trajectory z_cl(t) and keeping the quadratic fluctuation action S2 of Eq. (4.4). The covariance C(t) and mean shift δm(t) are determined by the auxiliary equations (4.8) and (4.12), which are derived from the Lyapunov equation and the averaged linearized Langevin dynamics; no target observable or validation result enters those equations. The predicted observable is then a Taylor expansion of O about z_cl(0) with the computed mean and covariance, so it is a genuine perturbative consequence of the MSRJD action rather than a restatement of an input. The numerical checks in Tables 2-4 compare the formula against independent references: an exact Gaussian Ornstein-Uhlenbeck kernel, a Fokker-Planck finite-difference solution, and Euler-Maruyama simulations. No parameter is fitted to these references; the model parameters are fixed drift coefficients. The re-derivation of score matching in Section 2.3.2 uses the standard KL/DSM identities with external citations [42,43], and the response-weighted objective in Eq. (4.19) is presented as a derived candidate with its own stated limitations. The EFT hierarchy in Section 5 is an explicit assumption-based prediction with a built-in falsifiability test via ε in Eq. (5.16), not a fitted conclusion. Self-citations appear only as contextual references to the living review literature [6,7] and are not load-bearing for the mathematical derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation uses standard stochastic calculus and Gaussian path-integral results and introduces no free parameters fitted to the validation targets. Secondary proposals rest on two explicit but untested assumptions: approximate decorrelation of score errors (Section 4.2) and order-unity EFT coefficients (Section 5.1). The numerical examples use fixed test drifts, not fitted parameters.

assumptions (8)

domain assumption Time reversal of an Itô diffusion has drift f - g^2 ∇ log p
Used in Eq. (2.10) to define the generative reverse SDE; standard result from Refs. [30,31], load-bearing for the Onsager-Machlup action.
domain assumption The one-step reverse transition kernel is Gaussian (Eq. 2.12)
Euler-Maruyama discretization of the reverse SDE; this Gaussian form yields the Onsager-Machlup action in Eq. (2.17). Standard continuum-limit assumption.
standard math The path measure absorbs the divergent normalization CN so that Dz exp(-S_OM) is finite
Eq. (2.18); a convention about the split between action and measure, not a dynamical input.
standard math Gaussian path integrals obey Wick's theorem
Used in Section 3.3 and for the free averages in Eqs. (3.41)-(3.44).
domain assumption The perturbative series is asymptotic and one-loop order is controlled when g^2 times the curvature norm is small
Stated in Section 4.4; defines the range of validity of the numerical claims.
domain assumption Score errors at different times are approximately uncorrelated
Invoked in Eq. (4.18) to derive the response-weighted objective Eq. (4.19); not tested.
ad hoc to paper EFT coefficients are of order unity, so ℓ/Λ dominates the operator hierarchy
Section 5.1; without this assumption the degree expansion carries no error estimate, as the author notes.
standard math Equivariant operator basis completeness follows from the first fundamental theorem for O(m)
Used in Section 5.2 to list the eleven degree-three operators.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Unifying Generative Models with Path Integrals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5RTPWCC

@misc{pith2026260812438,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Unifying Generative Models with Path Integrals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5RTPWCC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12438}
}

read the original abstract

We formulate generative modeling as a path integral in which flow-based, diffusion-based, variational, and adversarial models arise as different evaluation principles for a single master action. Its Martin-Siggia-Rose-Janssen-de~Dominicis (MSRJD) form separates free from interacting probability flows and opens them to diagrammatic perturbation theory. The expansion yields a one-loop correction to deterministic samplers at no stochastic-sampling cost, which we validate on solvable and nonlinear drifts, where it reduces a 53 % tree-level error to 1.6 %. Imperfect learned scores enter as insertions and yield a response-weighted score-matching objective, and symmetry-equivariant drift design becomes an operator expansion with EFT power counting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12438 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Diagrammatic form of the kernel expansion in Eq. (3.19). The hatched blob is the full kernel K(z0 , 0 | z1 , 1) and the plain arrowed line is free propagation K (0) under the linearized drift. Each dot is one insertion of f int integrated over its time argument as in Eq. (3.23), so K (n) carries n insertions. No form of f int is assumed. Resolving a dot into vertices with a definite number of legs requires expanding… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Diagrammatic elements of the MSRJD expansion, drawn for representative vertex orders. (a) the response propagator G(t, t ′ ) of Eq. (3.31). (b) the noiseinduced correlation C(t, t ′ ) ∝ g 2 of Eq. (3.33). (c) a vertex from Eq. (3.26), here the quartic zˆ · z 3 of a cubic drift. (d) the one-point insertion izˆ · δf of an imperfect learned score. (e) a tree-level contribution of a single vertex. (f) an inter-vertex l… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The two contributions to Eq. (3.48), assembled from the elements of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Transport of the second moment 〈∥z∥ 2 〉 along the sampling clock s = 1− t for the three validation models, at fixed diffusion strength g 2 = 0.4. Upper panels compare the deterministic sampler at tree level with its one-loop correction against the reference, lower pane…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[22]

arXiv:1705.09367. [55]L. Mescheder, A. Geiger, and S. Nowozin,Which training methods for GANs do actually converge?, inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning

arXiv
[1]

Badgeret al.,Machine learning and LHC event generation, SciPost Phys.14(2023) 4, 079, arXiv:2203.07460[hep-ph]

[1]S. Badgeret al.,Machine learning and LHC event generation, SciPost Phys.14(2023) 4, 079, arXiv:2203.07460[hep-ph]. [2]T . Plehn, A. Butter, B. Dillon, T . Heimel, C. Krause, and R. Winterhalder,Modern Machine Learning for LHC Physicists, arXiv:2211.01421[hep-ph]. [3]O. Amramet al.,CaloChallenge 2022: a community challenge for fast calorimeter simulatio...

arXiv 2023
[14]

[38]C. Aron, G. Biroli, and L. F . Cugliandolo,Symmetries of generating functionals of Langevin processes with colored multiplicative noise, J. Stat. Mech.1011(2010) P11018, arXiv:1007.5059[cond-mat.stat-mech]. [39]E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson,Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations. McGraw-Hill,

arXiv 2010
[20]

arXiv:1406.2661. [52]J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson,On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A231(1933)

arXiv 1933
[24]

arXiv:1802.05957. [57]U. C. Täuber,Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

arXiv
[26]

arXiv:2211.17091. [63]T . Karras, M. Aittala, T . Aila, and S. Laine,Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

arXiv
[30]

Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A96(1979) 1-2,

[67]S. Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A96(1979) 1-2,

work page 1979
[288]

[69]W . D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein,An Effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 104029, arXiv:hep-th/0409156. [70]R. A. Porto,The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics, Phys. Rept. 633(2016) 1, arXiv:1601.04914[hep-th]. 50 [71]M. Zaheer, S. Kottur, S. Ravanbakhsh, B. Póczos, R. Salakhutdino...

arXiv 2006

Show all 32 references

[313]

[31]U. G. Haussmann and É. Pardoux,Time reversal of diffusions, Annals of Probability14 (1986)

1986
[327]

Weinberg,Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys

[68]S. Weinberg,Nuclear forces from chiral Lagrangians, Phys. Lett. B251(1990)

1990
[377]

De Dominicis,Techniques de renormalisation de la théorie des champs et dynamique des phénomènes critiques, Journal de Physique Colloques37(1976) C1, C1

[12]C. De Dominicis,Techniques de renormalisation de la théorie des champs et dynamique des phénomènes critiques, Journal de Physique Colloques37(1976) C1, C1. [13]Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P . Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole,Score-based generative modeling throu...

1976 arXiv
[416]

Hubbard,Calculation of partition functions, Phys

[60]J. Hubbard,Calculation of partition functions, Phys. Rev. Lett.3(1959)

1959
[423]

[11]H.-K

https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.8.423. [11]H.-K. Janssen,On a lagrangean for classical field dynamics and renormalization group calculations of dynamical critical properties, Zeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 23(1976) 4,

1976 doi
[1188]

Maruyama,Continuous markov processes and stochastic equations, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo4(1955)

[32]G. Maruyama,Continuous markov processes and stochastic equations, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo4(1955)

1955
[1505]

Machlup and L

[9]S. Machlup and L. Onsager,Fluctuations and irreversible processes. II. systems with kinetic energy, Physical Review91(1953) 6,

1953
[1661]

Brehmer, K

[43]J. Brehmer, K. Cranmer, G. Louppe, and J. Pavez,A Guide to Constraining Effective Field Theories with Machine Learning, Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 5, 052004, arXiv:1805.00020 [hep-ph]. [44]Y. Song, C. Durkan, I. Murray , and S. Ermon,Maximum likelihood training of score-based di...

2018 arXiv
[1965]

Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phenomena, Int

48 [37]J. Zinn-Justin,Quantum field theory and critical phenomena, Int. Ser. Monogr. Phys.113 (2002)

2002
[1984]

Léonard,A survey of the schrödinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport, arXiv:1308.0215[math.PR]

[49]C. Léonard,A survey of the schrödinger problem and some of its connections with optimal transport, arXiv:1308.0215[math.PR]. [50]Y. Chen, T . T . Georgiou, and M. Pavon,Stochastic control liaisons: Richard Sinkhorn meets Gaspard Monge on a Schrödinger bridge, SIAM Review63...

2021 arXiv
[1989]

[30]B. D. Anderson,Reverse-time diffusion equation models, Stochastic Processes and their Applications12(1982) 3,

1982
[1992]

[34]D. J. Higham,An algorithmic introduction to numerical simulation of stochastic differential equations, SIAM Review43(2001) 3,

2001
[2006]

[24]D. M. Blei, A. Kucukelbir, and J. D. McAuliffe,Variational inference: A review for statisticians, Journal of the American Statistical Association112(2017) 518,

2017
[2009]

Vincent,A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders, Neural Computation23(2011) 7,

[42]P . Vincent,A connection between score matching and denoising autoencoders, Neural Computation23(2011) 7,

2011
[2014]

arXiv:1312.6114. [26]D. P . Kingma and M. Welling,An introduction to variational autoencoders, Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning12(2019) 4,

2019 arXiv
[2017]

49 [54]K

arXiv:1701.04862. 49 [54]K. Roth, A. Lucchi, S. Nowozin, and T . Hofmann,Stabilizing training of generative adversarial networks through regularization, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

arXiv
[2018]

arXiv:1801.04406. [56]T . Miyato, T . Kataoka, M. Koyama, and Y. Yoshida,Spectral normalization for generative adversarial networks, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations

arXiv
[2020]

arXiv:2007.02731. [19]R. Verheyen,Event Generation and Density Estimation with Surjective Normalizing Flows, SciPost Phys.13(2022) 3, 047, arXiv:2205.01697[hep-ph]. [20]C.-W . Huang, J. H. Lim, and A. Courville,A variational perspective on diffusion-based generative models and...

2022 arXiv
[2021]

arXiv:2101.09258. [45]D. P . Kingma and R. Gao,Understanding diffusion objectives as the ELBO with simple data augmentation, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

arXiv
[2022]

arXiv:2206.00364. [64]J. Pan, J. H. Liew, V . Y. F . Tan, J. Feng, and H. Yan,AdjointDPM: Adjoint sensitivity method for gradient backpropagation of diffusion probabilistic models, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations

arXiv
[2023]

arXiv:2303.00848. [46]Y. Lipman, M. Havasi, P . Holderrieth, N. Shaul, M. Le, B. Karrer, R. T . Q. Chen, D. Lopez-Paz, H. Ben-Hamu, and I. Gat,Flow matching guide and code, arXiv:2412.06264[cs.LG]. [47]Y. Shi, V . De Bortoli, A. Campbell, and A. Doucet,Diffusion Schrödinger br...

2023 arXiv
[2024]

arXiv:2307.10711. [65]C. Domingo-Enrich, M. Drozdzal, B. Karrer, and R. T . Q. Chen,Adjoint matching: Fine-tuning flow and diffusion generative models with memoryless stochastic optimal control, inInternational Conference on Learning Representations

arXiv
[2025]

arXiv:2409.08861. [66]R. Becker and R. Rannacher,An optimal control approach to a posteriori error estimation in finite element methods, Acta Numerica10(2001)

2001 arXiv
[2026]

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21626667. [7]C. Krause, R. Winterhalder, M. Feickert, and B. Nachman,The Living Guide of Machine Learning for Particle Physics, arXiv:2608.09531[hep-ph]. [8]L. Onsager and S. Machlup,Fluctuations and irreversible processes, Physical Review91 (1953) 6,

1953 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [22]

arXiv:1705.09367. [55]L. Mescheder, A. Geiger, and S. Nowozin,Which training methods for GANs do actually converge?, inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning

arXiv

[2] [1]

Badgeret al.,Machine learning and LHC event generation, SciPost Phys.14(2023) 4, 079, arXiv:2203.07460[hep-ph]

[1]S. Badgeret al.,Machine learning and LHC event generation, SciPost Phys.14(2023) 4, 079, arXiv:2203.07460[hep-ph]. [2]T . Plehn, A. Butter, B. Dillon, T . Heimel, C. Krause, and R. Winterhalder,Modern Machine Learning for LHC Physicists, arXiv:2211.01421[hep-ph]. [3]O. Amramet al.,CaloChallenge 2022: a community challenge for fast calorimeter simulatio...

arXiv 2023

[3] [14]

[38]C. Aron, G. Biroli, and L. F . Cugliandolo,Symmetries of generating functionals of Langevin processes with colored multiplicative noise, J. Stat. Mech.1011(2010) P11018, arXiv:1007.5059[cond-mat.stat-mech]. [39]E. A. Coddington and N. Levinson,Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations. McGraw-Hill,

arXiv 2010

[4] [20]

arXiv:1406.2661. [52]J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson,On the problem of the most efficient tests of statistical hypotheses, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A231(1933)

arXiv 1933

[5] [24]

arXiv:1802.05957. [57]U. C. Täuber,Critical Dynamics: A Field Theory Approach to Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Scaling Behavior. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

arXiv

[6] [26]

arXiv:2211.17091. [63]T . Karras, M. Aittala, T . Aila, and S. Laine,Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models, inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

arXiv

[7] [30]

Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A96(1979) 1-2,

[67]S. Weinberg,Phenomenological Lagrangians, Physica A96(1979) 1-2,

work page 1979

[8] [288]

[69]W . D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein,An Effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 104029, arXiv:hep-th/0409156. [70]R. A. Porto,The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics, Phys. Rept. 633(2016) 1, arXiv:1601.04914[hep-th]. 50 [71]M. Zaheer, S. Kottur, S. Ravanbakhsh, B. Póczos, R. Salakhutdino...

arXiv 2006