REVIEW 1 cited by
Ambient Diffusion: Learning Clean Distributions from Corrupted Data
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
We present the first diffusion-based framework that can learn an unknown distribution using only highly-corrupted samples. This problem arises in scientific applications where access to uncorrupted samples is impossible or expensive to acquire. Another benefit of our approach is the ability to train generative models that are less likely to memorize individual training samples since they never observe clean training data. Our main idea is to introduce additional measurement distortion during the diffusion process and require the model to predict the original corrupted image from the further corrupted image. We prove that our method leads to models that learn the conditional expectation of the full uncorrupted image given this additional measurement corruption. This holds for any corruption process that satisfies some technical conditions (and in particular includes inpainting and compressed sensing). We train models on standard benchmarks (CelebA, CIFAR-10 and AFHQ) and show that we can learn the distribution even when all the training samples have $90\%$ of their pixels missing. We also show that we can finetune foundation models on small corrupted datasets (e.g. MRI scans with block corruptions) and learn the clean distribution without memorizing the training set.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Bootstrapping Diffusion: Diffusion Model Training Leveraging Partial and Corrupted Data
Bootstrapping diffusion trains per-view diffusion models on partial data and a residual denoiser on a small full-resolution set, claiming provable near-optimal data efficiency that the paper does not actually prove.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.