Sari la conținut

Română · beta. Traducerea a fost făcută automat și este încă în curs de revizuire. Citește pagina în engleză

perspectiva aiqbenchMachine learning

analiza aiqbench

This paper establishes a rigorous mathematical framework proving that a single implicit DDIM inversion step acts as a convex program to probe the local manifold geometry of pretrained diffusion models. By deriving hypothesis-free bounds on posterior covariance and contraction rates, the authors provide a certificate for model error when multiple solutions exist, effectively distinguishing between solver instability and genuine limitations in the trained score function. The analysis reveals that standard DDPM schedules violate unconditional ceiling constraints derived from basic covariance positivity, offering new theoretical limits for diffusion inversion accuracy.
Sursă care acoperăarXiv
Ce este aceastaLectura unui model asupra articolului și a acoperirii conexe, scrisă pentru aiqbench. Nu sunt cuvintele publicației.

One Inverse Step is a Convex Program: Bayes-Limit Calibration of Diffusion Inversion

arXiv3 min de cititArticolul și perspectiva sunt în engleză.

arXiv:2608.23094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: One implicit DDIM inversion step is the cheapest probe of whether a pretrained diffusion model encodes local manifold geometry. It is the stationarity condition of an explicit potential, $x-G(x)=\nabla\Psi_t(x)$, strongly convex at the Bayes limit with modulus exactly $e^{-h_t}$ for the step's log-SNR gap $h_t$ $-$ for every data law, schedule and point, with no manifold, reach or unimodality hypothesis. Three consequences must be kept apart. (i) The solution is unique at the Bayes limit; a second one requires the trained score to violate the posterior-covariance bound by $1/(1-e^{-h_t})$, a hypothesis-free certificate of model error; the same bound makes contraction a schedule constant, $\rho_g^{\star}=1-e^{-h_t}2$, so oscillation certifies nothing; damping below $2/\lambda_{\max}$ cures it. (iii) The geometry lives in the convergence domain: on the scale-free depth $w=r\kappa_{\max}$ the oscillation shell sits at $w=\tfrac12$, schedule-free, and the divergence shell at $w=1/(1+\rho_g^{\star})$, with a measured finite-noise correction in $\|\mathrm{II}\|^2$. Exact scores reproduce both to within $0.54\%$ on three classes; no trained score we probe shows a shell $-$ a derived limitation, not a null result: the Fermi window conflicts with the model's own training support by $3.6$-$5.6\times$, and the trained Hessian-Lipschitz constant is $2$-$12\%$ of the curvature the law reads, $0$ on a ReLU net. Finally the unconditional ceiling $\sigma_t\lambda_{\max}(\mathrm{sym}\,J)\le1$, from $\mathrm{Cov}(x_0\mid x_t)\succeq0$ alone, holds for the exact score to $3\times10^{-7}$ but is violated in all DDPM CIFAR-10/CelebA-HQ-256 settings, by $1.26$-$4.66\times$.

Abstract:One implicit DDIM inversion step is the cheapest probe of whether a pretrained diffusion model encodes local manifold geometry. It is the stationarity condition of an explicit potential, $x-G(x)=\nabla\Psi_t(x)$, strongly convex at the Bayes limit with modulus exactly $e^{-h_t}$ for the step's log-SNR gap $h_t$ $-$ for every data law, schedule and point, with no manifold, reach or unimodality hypothesis. Three consequences must be kept apart. (i) The solution is unique at the Bayes limit; a second one requires the trained score to violate the posterior-covariance bound by $1/(1-e^{-h_t})$, a hypothesis-free certificate of model error; the same bound makes contraction a schedule constant, $\rho_g^{\star}=1-e^{-h_t}<0.326$ throughout the standard DDPM schedule. (ii) The solver can still fail: Picard iteration is unit-step gradient descent on $\Psi_t$, unstable wherever $\lambda_{\max}(\nabla^2\Psi_t)>2$, so oscillation certifies nothing; damping below $2/\lambda_{\max}$ cures it. (iii) The geometry lives in the convergence domain: on the scale-free depth $w=r\kappa_{\max}$ the oscillation shell sits at $w=\tfrac12$, schedule-free, and the divergence shell at $w=1/(1+\rho_g^{\star})$, with a measured finite-noise correction in $\|\mathrm{II}\|^2$. Exact scores reproduce both to within $0.54\%$ on three classes; no trained score we probe shows a shell $-$ a derived limitation, not a null result: the Fermi window conflicts with the model's own training support by $3.6$-$5.6\times$, and the trained Hessian-Lipschitz constant is $2$-$12\%$ of the curvature the law reads, $0$ on a ReLU net. Finally the unconditional ceiling $\sigma_t\lambda_{\max}(\mathrm{sym}\,J)\le1$, from $\mathrm{Cov}(x_0\mid x_t)\succeq0$ alone, holds for the exact score to $3\times10^{-7}$ but is violated in all DDPM CIFAR-10/CelebA-HQ-256 settings, by $1.26$-$4.66\times$.

Machine Learning (stat.ML); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2608.23094 [stat.ML]

(or arXiv:2608.23094v1 [stat.ML] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.23094 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 347 cuvinte

Subiecte conexe