PRISM: Principled Reference Identification for Schrodinger Bridge Model

Forouzan Fallah; Yezhou Yang

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 49 references

PRISM: Principled Reference Identification for Schrodinger Bridge Model

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Bridge noise optimum is the destroyed-information spectrum

desk verdict PRISM is a genuine derivation of bridge reference design in a linear-Gaussian model, with careful experiments and honest boundary statements; the main caveat is that the headline result needs the singleton-argmin/uniform-grid qualifiers the abstract omits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06893 v1 pith:CAIGZ3UM submitted 2026-08-07 cs.LG

Forouzan Fallah , Yezhou Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords Schrödingerbridgereferenceprocessdesignnoisecolorspectruminverseproblemrestorationfinite-stepsamplingWienerfilterGaussianmodeldistortion-perceptiontradeoff

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

PRISM asks a question that Schrödinger bridge models previously left to intuition: when a bridge restores a degraded signal, what noise should the reference process inject at each spatial frequency? In a linear-Gaussian model of each frequency, where the observation is $x_1 = h x_0 + n$ and the posterior residual variance is $P_k$, the paper proves that the reference is invisible in the infinite-step, exact-drift limit, so reference choice matters only under a finite solver budget. For a fixed number $T$ of solver steps, the finite-step objective separates by mode, and every global optimizer is proportional to the destroyed-information spectrum, $v_k^* = x^*(T) P_k$, with the same mode-independent constant $x^*(T) = (2\ln T)^{-1/2}(1+o(1))$. It also proves a $z$-identity making noise color and temporal schedule exchangeable, and that regularization shifts the optimum toward white noise; experiments confirm these closed-form predictions in Gaussian settings, while a controlled study on real face images shows the matched reference stops winning and traces the breakdown to non-Gaussian per-mode statistics.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the per-mode linear-Gaussian model plus four exact structures: the Wiener residual spectrum $P_k = S_k N_k/(h_k^2 S_k + N_k)$, which measures how much information the sensor destroyed; Theorem 1's characterization that exactly tractable time-varying references are precisely those with pairwise-commuting instantaneous covariances, equivalently a fixed modal basis that decouples the bridge into independent scalar modes; the closed-form variance-deficit $D_0 = vP^3 \sum_{i=1}^T (\Delta\rho_i)^2 / (\rho_i \varphi(\rho_i) \varphi(\rho_{i-1})^2)$; and the $z$-identity $z(\rho) = v\rho/\varphi(\rho)$, which converts the deficit into $P \sum_i (\Delta z_i)^2/z_i$ and proves the color-schedule exchangeability. The scale symmetry $\mathrm{KL}(v,P) = \Phi(v/P)$ is the algebraic heart of the argument: it forces every global optimizer to share one mode-independent constant $x^*(T)$.

What would settle it

Train the same bridge model on synthetic images whose per-mode conditional distributions are exactly Gaussian with the same spectrum and degradation as the real-image experiments; PRISM predicts the matched reference must beat white noise at low NFE. If white noise still wins, the Gaussian per-mode assumption is not the operative failure; if matched wins, the real-image inversion is caused by non-Gaussianity, confirming the paper's mechanism study.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a pair of theorems about reference design in Gaussian Schrödinger bridges. First, with the exact drift and an unlimited number of solver steps, the reference is invisible: every admissible reference variance $v>0$ converges to the true posterior, so any reason to prefer one reference must come from finite steps, model error, or finite data. Second, for a fixed $T$-step budget the per-mode KL separates and is scale-invariant, depending on the reference only through $x = v/P$; whenever $\arg\min \Phi$ is a singleton, every global optimizer is $v_k^* = x^*(T) P_k$, proportional to the Wiener residual spectrum $P_k$, with $x^*(T) = (2\ln T)^{-1/2}(1+o(1))$ on uniform grids. The paper also proves that color and temporal schedule are interchangeable through a $z$-identity, that a fixed total budget bends the exponent from $P_k$ to $P_k^2$, and that shared ridge regularization shifts the optimizer toward white noise with $v_k^* = x^*(nP_k)P_k$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every spatial frequency is an independent scalar Gaussian conditional on the observation, with known spectra $S_k$, $h_k$, $N_k$ and an exact or scale-equivariant drift; the paper's own real-image experiments show the matched-reference prediction fails once per-mode conditionals become non-Gaussian.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Reference design becomes a calculation in the Gaussian regime: from the known signal, blur, and noise spectra, the optimal reference is $v_k^* = x^*(T)P_k$ with $x^*(T) = (2\ln T)^{-1/2}(1+o(1))$, replacing a hyperparameter sweep.
In the exact-drift, unlimited-step limit no reference is better than any other, so reported color advantages must be re-examined for step-budget or schedule confounds.
Noise color and temporal scheduling are exchangeable: with per-mode-adapted schedules discretization error is color-blind, and the unique optimal schedule is given by the explicit recurrence $2a_{i+1} = 1 + a_i^2$, $a_1 = 0$, with a per-mode KL floor of $4/T^2$.
Under a fixed total noise budget the optimal allocation bends from $P_k$ to $P_k^2$, so equal-budget comparisons, the usual empirical protocol, silently change the optimization problem and should be reported separately.
Shared ridge regularization whitens the optimal reference: with effective sample size $nP_k$, the optimum is $v_k^* = x^*(nP_k)P_k$, so weakly observed frequencies need disproportionately more reference noise.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the proportionality law uses only the spectra $S_k$, $h_k$, and $N_k$, it should extend to any linear inverse problem with a known degradation operator; testing it on inpainting or compressed sensing would be a direct check.
The $z$-identity suggests that temporal schedule and noise color can be optimized independently even outside the Gaussian regime, since schedule adaptation already removed part of the white-versus-matched gap in the experiments; whether $z$-optimal grids close the real-image gap at larger step budgets is a testable extension.
The experimental finding that mild $P_k$-coloring helps at low NFE while white noise wins at high NFE implies a practical recipe the theory itself does not claim: use partial coloring in the few-step regime and white otherwise; that is an empirical extrapolation.
A deeper open question the paper raises is whether, for non-Gaussian per-mode conditionals, the optimal reference is still some functional of those conditional distributions; measuring the reference that minimizes empirical KL per mode on real images would begin to answer it.

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

Take this paper seriously, but referee the abstract with a pen. The core contribution is real: in the linear-Gaussian per-mode model, PRISM converts bridge reference selection from a heuristic choice into a calculation. Theorem 1's commuting-covariance characterization is clean; Theorem 2's invisibility result is a useful negative; the closed-form finite-step KL and the P_k-proportional optimum with x*(T) = (2 ln T)^-1/2 are derived, not fitted. I checked the appendix enough to see the proofs are complete and the numerics are exact recursion checks rather than Monte Carlo. The learned Gaussian experiments confirm the ordering; the FFHQ section is unusually honest, with a pre-registered prediction that fails and a 2x2 study tracking the inversion to non-Gaussian per-mode statistics. That is good scientific behavior.

Soft spots, in proportion. The abstract's 'every optimal noise spectrum is proportional to P_k' is stronger than Theorem 3(iii), which requires arg min Phi to be a singleton. That condition is real: non-uniform grids give counterexamples, and even on uniform grids uniqueness is proved only for 2<=T<=120, with numerical checks for larger T. So the 'calculation from the known degradation model' should be phrased with those qualifiers. It is a fixable overstatement, not a hole in the argument. Similarly, the theory deliberately idealizes independence and Gaussianity per mode; the authors are upfront that FFHQ inverts the ordering and that this is the limit. I would ask for code/data/checkpoints before accepting the empirical claims as reproducible, but the experiments are already described in enough detail to be credible.

Citation pattern: prior work on colored noise is empirical, and the paper locates itself properly. I don't see a circularity problem: the optimal reference is derived from the degradation model, then verified independently.

Who gets value: anyone working on Schrödinger bridge restoration or noise schedule design. It deserves a serious referee. My recommendation: send it to review, and require the abstract to match the theorem conditions and a reproducibility statement.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops PRISM, a theory for designing the reference process in Schrödinger bridge image-restoration models. In a linear-Gaussian per-mode degradation model, the authors characterize which time-varying Gaussian references remain exactly tractable (those with commuting instantaneous covariances), prove an invisibility principle (with exact drift and unlimited solver steps the terminal law converges to the true posterior independently of the reference), and derive the exact finite-step terminal KL in closed form. The central structural result is that the per-mode KL depends only on the dimensionless ratio x = v/P, so the objective separates; whenever the mode-independent profile Phi has a unique global minimizer, every global optimizer satisfies v_k = x*(T) P_k, with x*(T) = (2 ln T)^{-1/2}(1+o(1)) on uniform grids. A z-identity shows that color and temporal schedule are exchangeable under per-mode schedule adaptation, and extensions cover drift errors, ridge regularization, and budget constraints. Experiments on exact recursions and learned Gaussian models confirm the predicted orderings and closed-form floors. On FFHQ, the distortion-perception trade-off and spectral localization transfer, but white noise outperforms the matched P_k-proportional reference; a pre-registered training-regime study and a 2x2 mechanism study trace the inversion to the non-Gaussian per-mode statistics of real images.

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a significant contribution to bridge-reference design: it replaces heuristic sweeps with a closed-form calculation in the Gaussian regime, provides a rigorous finite-step objective with explicit asymptotic laws, and carefully delineates where the Gaussian theory breaks down on real data. The paper is unusually rigorous for an ML submission: the main theorems have appendix proofs with exact recursions and explicit error bounds, numerical certificates are used to corroborate asymptotic claims, and the experiments include pre-registered predictions, common random numbers, and controlled mechanism studies. The learned Gaussian experiments quantitatively confirm the theoretical floors and orderings. The main weakness is that the headline claim is stated more strongly than the theorems support: the proportionality v_k = x* P_k requires a unique minimizer of Phi, which is proved only for uniform grids with 2 <= T <= 120 and numerically certified for a few larger T, and it fails on non-uniform grids. The paper also depends on a fixed shared schedule; under the z-optimal schedule of Theorem 4(a) all colors are equivalent.

major comments (2)

[Abstract; §3.3, Theorem 3(iii); §6.4, Proposition 2] The abstract states that PRISM proves 'every optimal noise spectrum is proportional to P_k' and that the optimal constant is x*(T) = (2 ln T)^-1/2(1+o(1)). This overstates what Theorem 3 establishes. Theorem 3(iii) gives v*_k = x*(grid,T) P_k only when arg min Phi is a singleton. Proposition 2 shows that on uniform grids uniqueness is proved only for 2 <= T <= 120, numerically certified for T <= 200 and a few larger values, and is false on some non-uniform grids, on which different modes can occupy different valleys of Phi and yield non-proportional optimizers. Thus the unqualified 'every optimal' claim in the abstract and conclusion is stronger than the proven result. Please qualify the claim with the conditions of a fixed shared grid and a unique minimizer of the mode-independent profile, and state the current proof range for uniqueness.
[§6.4, 'Uniqueness (Proposition 2)'] The paper's central proportionality claim rests on the singleton-arg-min property, but the appendix does not provide the promised certificates. The text says that for each integer 2 <= T <= 120 an explicit polynomial P_T in Z[x] is derived whose positive roots are exactly the critical points of H, with one sign change, and that numerical certification covers T up to 200 and T in {500, 1000, 5000}; however, no polynomial, certificate, or generating code is included. Without these data the reader cannot verify the uniqueness condition on which the 'every optimal' statement depends. Please provide the certificates or a script that generates them, and describe the exact algorithm and precision used for the numerical certification beyond T = 120.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract; §3.3, Theorem 4(a)] The abstract should clarify that the proportionality law v_k = x*(T) P_k applies to a fixed shared schedule. Theorem 4(a) shows that under per-mode schedule adaptation the schedule-optimal deficit is color-independent, so the P_k law is a statement about a schedule convention rather than an invariant model prediction. The paper does state this in Section 3.3, but the abstract and introduction should carry the same qualification to avoid misleading readers.
[§4.3 and §7.2] The matched reference on FFHQ uses x*(T=50)=0.404 for all evaluated NFE values (5, 10, 20, 50, 100), but Proposition 1 gives a T-dependent constant. At NFE values other than 50, the matched reference is therefore not at the theory's predicted optimal scale for that budget. Please state this explicitly, or use per-NFE constants when the goal is to test the predicted ordering at each budget.
[§7.6, 'Convergence audit'] The paper's statement that the pre-registered study 'refutes ridge whitening as the explanation' is carefully qualified in Section 7.6 by the observation that low-frequency fingerprint error persists at 300k steps and 'the ridge-whitening law remains untested at true convergence.' This is honest, but the abstract's phrasing may be read as a stronger refutation; consider adding the convergence caveat to the abstract or conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the finite-step objective and the proportionality law are derived from the stated degradation model and verified independently, not fitted or self-cited into place.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. P_k is defined directly from the degradation model in Eq. (1), P_k = S_k N_k / (h_k^2 S_k + N_k), as the Wiener residual spectrum; it is not defined in terms of the optimal reference. The finite-step objective (5), D0 = v P^3 sum_i (Delta rho_i)^2 / (rho_i phi(rho_i) phi(rho_{i-1})^2), is obtained by unrolling an explicit affine recursion (Lemmas 3-6), with no fitted constants. Theorem 3's proportionality v*_k = x*(T) P_k follows from the exact scale symmetry that the per-mode KL depends only on x = v/P, so the separable sum is minimized mode-wise by the same profile; this is a mathematical reduction, not an identity that assumes the conclusion. The constant x*(T) = (2 ln T)^{-1/2}(1+o(1)) is proved in Proposition 1 via Lemmas 7-11 and then independently checked by golden-section minimization of the exact objective; the paper reports measured optima such as 0.575 vs. 0.577 at T=10 and 0.402 vs. 0.404 at T=50, which are comparisons against the formula rather than uses of the formula to fix parameters. The paper's own limitations are stated explicitly: uniqueness of arg min Phi is proved only on uniform grids for 2<=T<=120 and numerically certified beyond, and the FFHQ experiments show the matched reference stops winning under non-Gaussian per-mode statistics. Those are scope limits and empirical refutations, not cases where a prediction reduces to its input. The only self-citation in the vicinity, [12], is used for the classical distortion-perception trade-off context and is not load-bearing for any theorem. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent by construction to its own inputs, and no fitted value is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theory itself introduces no ad hoc constants: S, h, N are inputs, P_k is computed, and x*(T) is derived and numerically verified. The only fitted quantity is the empirical signal spectrum used to construct the FFHQ matched reference. No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated; the z-variable is a change of coordinates.

free parameters (1)

S(k) (FFHQ signal spectrum estimate) = radially averaged power spectrum of the 60k image training split
Used to compute P_k and the matched reference in the FFHQ experiments; it is estimated from data rather than derived. The Gaussian experiments use an analytic S_k=k^-2, so the theory itself has no fitted parameters.

assumptions (4)

standard math Gaussian conditioning, simultaneous diagonalization, linear SDE Gaussianity, Riemann-sum error bounds, Descartes' rule, Gaussian KL (Table 4).
These are the only external ingredients used in the proofs, per App 6.1 and Table 4.
domain assumption The degradation is linear-Gaussian per mode: x0 ~ N(0,S), x1 = h x0 + n with known spectra (Eq. 3).
This is the solvable model from Section 3.2 on which all optimal-reference claims are proved.
domain assumption The sampler uses the exact plug-in mean drift (a Bayes-optimal network) at each level.
The finite-step theory in Section 3.3 assumes the drift is the conditional mean; model error is only treated perturbatively in Section 3.4.
domain assumption After the commuting diagonalization, modes are independent scalar Gaussians with no cross-mode coupling.
Mode separability is what makes the per-mode KL sum and the v_k = x* P_k proportionality exact; Section 4.5 shows coupling and non-Gaussianity appear on real images.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PRISM: Principled Reference Identification for Schrodinger Bridge Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CAIGZ3UM

@misc{pith2026260806893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PRISM: Principled Reference Identification for Schrodinger Bridge Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CAIGZ3UM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06893}
}

read the original abstract

Schr\"odinger bridge models restore a clean signal from a degraded observation by following the conditional bridges of a reference process, yet this reference is chosen heuristically, typically white noise with a hand-tuned schedule. We develop PRISM, a theory of bridge reference design. We characterize the time-varying Gaussian references that remain exactly tractable with per-mode schedules: precisely those whose instantaneous covariances commute. We then prove an invisibility principle: with the exact drift and unlimited solver steps, every admissible reference recovers the true posterior. The choice of reference therefore matters only under finite computational resources. For a fixed step budget, we derive the finite-step objective in closed form and prove that every optimal noise spectrum is proportional to Pk, the spectrum of information destroyed by the sensor, with a mode-independent constant x*(T) = (2 ln T)^-1/2 (1 + o(1)). The analysis shows that noise color and temporal scheduling are interchangeable, and regularization provably shifts the optimal reference toward white noise. Experiments in Gaussian settings confirm the predicted orderings and the closed-form loss floors. On FFHQ, the distortion-- perception trade-off and spectral localization transfer, but white noise outperforms the matched reference; a pre-registered study that changes the training regime refutes ridge whitening as the explanation. A 2x2 mechanism study then traces the inversion to the non-Gaussian per-mode statistics of real images. PRISM turns reference design from a hyperparameter sweep into a calculation in the Gaussian regime, and locates exactly where real images break it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06893 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** There is a right amount of reference noise, and its size is predictable. (a) Each row is a solver sampling budget T; each column shows the injected reference noise level, as a scale x relative to the information destroyed by the sensor. Too little noise (left) fails to recover missing detail; too much (right) obscures the reconstruction. (b) Reconstruction error as a function of x, with one curve per T. Every curve … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Exact finite-step predictions. (a) Invisibility (Theorem 2). (b) Terminal KL rates, uniform vs. power grid. (c,d) The constant (Prop. 1): measured x ∗ (T) against (2 ln T) −1/2 , and their ratio. (e) Reference multimodality (Prop. 2): seven local minima of Φ on a clustered T=48 schedule, certified in 50-digit arithmetic. Color therefore matters only through what the per-mode scalar model cannot see: (a) scale-noneq… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Learned Gaussian models. (a) Relative excess of the converged loss over the closed-form Bayes floor for ρ ∈ [0.1, 0.95]: median 0.18% against the pre-registered 5% gate. (b) NFE-vs-KL by reference (3 seeds, mean±std; dashed lines are exact-drift floors). with white and anti-matched between—the exact-drift ordering, at learned drifts. At NFE 200, gain error (Prop. 4) dominates discretization error: matched and white … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FFHQ under the original recipe (common random numbers; matched and white mean±std over 3 seeds). (a) PSNR and (b) FID against NFE: anti-matched attains the best distortion and the worst perception at every NFE—the distortion–perception trade-off of App 6.5. (c) Radiall…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The landscape of T H(x), and why the minimizer is localized. Left: the two barriers of Theorem 3, Step 3 — Φ → ∞ at both ends — with the exact minimizer marked for each T. Right: at T = 104 , the exact T H against the comparison function h(x) = x ln T + 1 2x of Lemma 1…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: x ∗ (T) follows (2 ln T) −1/2 . Left: exact optimizer against the law of Proposition 1. Right: their ratio, which decreases from 1.29 at T = 5 to 1.017 at T = 105 . The approach is slow because the proved error is O( √ δT χT ), not O(1/T). Uniform grids: proved for 2 ≤…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The solver coordinate z absorbs the color. Left: ρ 7→ z = vρ/φ(ρ) for five values of x = v/P. Each is a bijection of [0, 1], so every z-grid is reachable at every color — this is Theorem 4a. Center: the exact optimizer z ∗ i from the recurrence (85) against the continu…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Reference exponent under two training recipes. FID (left) and LPIPS (right) against the color exponent θ (v ∝ P θ k , fixed budget); stars mark the argmin per NFE. Top: converged recipe — θ=0.25 is best only for NFE ≤ 20, and white is best for NFE ≥ 50. Bottom: origina…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Convergence audit (converged recipe). Per-(radial band, t) training loss relative to the Bayes floor at 300k steps. The low-frequency excess shrinks relative to the original recipe but persists; mid and high frequencies sit at the floor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

Anderson.An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis

T.W. Anderson.An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, 2003

work page 2003
[2]

Springer, 2006

Saugata Basu, Richard Pollack, and Marie-Françoise Roy.Algorithms in real algebraic geometry. Springer, 2006

work page 2006
[3]

Spectral analysis of diffusion models with application to schedule design.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:2073–2127, 2026

Roi Benita, Miki Elad, and Joseph Keshet. Spectral analysis of diffusion models with application to schedule design.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:2073–2127, 2026

work page 2026
[4]

The perception-distortion tradeoff

Yochai Blau and Tomer Michaeli. The perception-distortion tradeoff. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6228–6237, 2018

2018
[5]

The schrödinger bridge between gaussian measures has a closed form

Charlotte Bunne, Ya-Ping Hsieh, Marco Cuturi, and Andreas Krause. The schrödinger bridge between gaussian measures has a closed form. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 5802–5833. PMLR, 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Analytic Bridge Diffusions for Controlled Path Generation

Michael Chertkov. Analytic bridge diffusions for controlled path generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02961, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026
[7]

Cover and J.A

T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas.Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, 2012

work page 2012
[8]

Colored Noise Diffusion Sampling

Hadar Davidson, Noam Issachar, and Sagie Benaim. Colored noise diffusion sampling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30332, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

Show all 49 references

[9]

Diffusion Schrödinger bridge with applications to score-based generative modeling.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:17695–17709, 2021

Valentin De Bortoli, James Thornton, Jeremy Heng, and Arnaud Doucet. Diffusion Schrödinger bridge with applications to score-based generative modeling.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:17695–17709, 2021

2021
[10]

Spectrally-guided diffusion noise schedules

Carlos Esteves and Ameesh Makadia. Spectrally-guided diffusion noise schedules. InForty-third International Conference on Machine Learning, 2026. 37

2026
[11]

A fourier space perspective on diffusion models

Fabian Falck, Teodora Pandeva, Kiarash Zahirnia, Rachel Lawrence, Richard Turner, Edward Meeds, Javier Zazo, and Sushrut Karmalkar. A fourier space perspective on diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.11278, 2025

2025 arXiv
[12]

Rareflow: Physics- aware flow-matching for cross-sensor super-resolution of rare-earth features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23816, 2025

Forouzan Fallah, Wenwen Li, Chia-Yu Hsu, Hyunho Lee, and Yezhou Yang. Rareflow: Physics- aware flow-matching for cross-sensor super-resolution of rare-earth features.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23816, 2025

2025 arXiv
[13]

A theory of the distortion-perception tradeoff in wasserstein space.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:25661–25672, 2021

Dror Freirich, Tomer Michaeli, and Ron Meir. A theory of the distortion-perception tradeoff in wasserstein space.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:25661–25672, 2021

2021
[14]

Light and optimal schrödinger bridge matching

Nikita Gushchin, Sergei Kholkin, Evgeny Burnaev, and Alexander Korotin. Light and optimal schrödinger bridge matching. InForty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

2024
[15]

Inverse bridge matching distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01362, 2025

Nikita Gushchin, David Li, Daniil Selikhanovych, Evgeny Burnaev, Dmitry Baranchuk, and Alexander Korotin. Inverse bridge matching distillation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01362, 2025

2025 arXiv
[16]

Adversarial schrödinger bridge matching.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:89612–89651, 2024

Nikita Gushchin, Daniil Selikhanovych, Sergei Kholkin, Evgeny Burnaev, and Alexander Korotin. Adversarial schrödinger bridge matching.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:89612–89651, 2024

2024
[17]

Consistency diffusion bridge models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:23516–23548, 2024

Guande He, Kaiwen Zheng, Jianfei Chen, Fan Bao, and Jun Zhu. Consistency diffusion bridge models.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:23516–23548, 2024

2024
[18]

Horn and C.R

R.A. Horn and C.R. Johnson.Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2012

2012
[19]

Energy-oriented diffusion bridge for image restoration with foundational diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10983, 2026

Jinhui Hou, Zhiyu Zhu, and Junhui Hou. Energy-oriented diffusion bridge for image restoration with foundational diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.10983, 2026

2026 arXiv
[20]

Schrödinger bridge matching for tree-structured costs and entropic wasserstein barycentres.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:130112–130149, 2026

Samuel Howard, Peter Potaptchik, and George Deligiannidis. Schrödinger bridge matching for tree-structured costs and entropic wasserstein barycentres.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:130112–130149, 2026

2026
[21]

Blue noise for diffusion models

Xingchang Huang, Corentin Salaun, Cristina Vasconcelos, Christian Theobalt, Cengiz Oztireli, and Gurprit Singh. Blue noise for diffusion models. InACM SIGGRAPH 2024 conference papers, pages 1–11, 2024

2024
[22]

Shaping inductive bias in diffusion models through frequency-based noise control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10236, 2025

Thomas Jiralerspong, Berton Earnshaw, Jason Hartford, Yoshua Bengio, and Luca Scimeca. Shaping inductive bias in diffusion models through frequency-based noise control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.10236, 2025

2025 arXiv
[23]

Karatzas and S

I. Karatzas and S. Shreve.Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. Number v. 113 in Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. Springer New York, 1991

1991
[24]

Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:26565–26577, 2022

Tero Karras, Miika Aittala, Timo Aila, and Samuli Laine. Elucidating the design space of diffusion-based generative models.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:26565–26577, 2022

2022
[25]

A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks

Tero Karras, Samuli Laine, and Timo Aila. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 4401–4410, 2019

2019
[26]

Diffusion & adversarial schrödinger bridges via iterative proportional markovian fitting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.02601, 2024

Sergei Kholkin, Grigoriy Ksenofontov, David Li, Nikita Kornilov, Nikita Gushchin, Alexan- dra Suvorikova, Alexey Kroshnin, Evgeny Burnaev, and Alexander Korotin. Diffusion & adversarial schrödinger bridges via iterative proportional markovian fitting.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410....
[27]

Understanding diffusion objectives as the elbo with simple data augmentation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:65484–65516, 2023

Diederik Kingma and Ruiqi Gao. Understanding diffusion objectives as the elbo with simple data augmentation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:65484–65516, 2023. 38

2023
[28]

Variational diffusion models

Diederik Kingma, Tim Salimans, Ben Poole, and Jonathan Ho. Variational diffusion models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:21696–21707, 2021

2021
[29]

Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed

Shanchuan Lin, Bingchen Liu, Jiashi Li, and Xiao Yang. Common diffusion noise schedules and sample steps are flawed. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision, pages 5404–5411, 2024

2024
[30]

Guan-Horng Liu, Yaron Lipman, Maximilian Nickel, Brian Karrer, Evangelos Theodorou, and Ricky T. Q. Chen. Generalized schrödinger bridge matching. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

2024
[31]

Theodorou, Weili Nie, and Anima Anandkumar

Guan-Horng Liu, Arash Vahdat, De-An Huang, Evangelos A. Theodorou, Weili Nie, and Anima Anandkumar. I2SB: Image-to-image Schrödinger bridge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.05872, 2023

2023 arXiv
[32]

Deep learning face attributes in the wild

Ziwei Liu, Ping Luo, Xiaogang Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. InProceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 3730–3738, 2015

2015
[33]

Constant rate scheduling: Constant-rate distributional change for efficient training and sampling in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12188, 2024

Shuntaro Okada, Ryota Yoshihashi, Hirokatsu Kataoka, Tomohiro Tanaka, et al. Constant rate scheduling: Constant-rate distributional change for efficient training and sampling in diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12188, 2024

2024
[34]

Øksendal.Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications

B. Øksendal.Stochastic Differential Equations: An Introduction with Applications. Universitext. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010

2010
[35]

Diffusion bridge mixture transports, schrödinger bridge problems and generative modeling.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(374):1–51, 2023

Stefano Peluchetti. Diffusion bridge mixture transports, schrödinger bridge problems and generative modeling.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(374):1–51, 2023

2023
[36]

Rudin.Principles of Mathematical Analysis

W. Rudin.Principles of Mathematical Analysis. International series in pure and applied mathematics. McGraw-Hill, 1976

1976
[37]

Learning what matters: Steering diffusion via spectrally anisotropic forward noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09660, 2025

Luca Scimeca, Thomas Jiralerspong, Berton Earnshaw, Jason Hartford, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning what matters: Steering diffusion via spectrally anisotropic forward noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09660, 2025

2025
[38]

Diffusion Schrödinger bridge matching.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:62183–62223, 2023

Yuyang Shi, Valentin De Bortoli, Andrew Campbell, and Arnaud Doucet. Diffusion Schrödinger bridge matching.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:62183–62223, 2023

2023
[39]

Simplified diffusion schrödinger bridge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14623, 2024

Zhicong Tang, Tiankai Hang, Shuyang Gu, Dong Chen, and Baining Guo. Simplified diffusion schrödinger bridge.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.14623, 2024

2024 arXiv
[40]

Irbridge: Solving image restoration bridge with pre-trained generative diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24406, 2025

Hanting Wang, Tao Jin, Wang Lin, Shulei Wang, Hai Huang, Shengpeng Ji, and Zhou Zhao. Irbridge: Solving image restoration bridge with pre-trained generative diffusion models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24406, 2025

2025 arXiv
[41]

Residual diffusion bridge model for image restoration

Hebaixu Wang, Jing Zhang, Haoyang Chen, Haonan Guo, Di Wang, Jiayi Ma, and Bo Du. Residual diffusion bridge model for image restoration. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 8375–8386, 2026

2026
[42]

Implicit image-to-image schrödinger bridge for ct super-resolution and denoising.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06069, 2, 2024

Yuang Wang, Siyeop Yoon, Pengfei Jin, Matthew Tivnan, Zhennong Chen, Rui Hu, Li Zhang, Zhiqiang Chen, Quanzheng Li, and Dufan Wu. Implicit image-to-image schrödinger bridge for ct super-resolution and denoising.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.06069, 2, 2024

2024 arXiv
[43]

Implicit image-to-image schrödinger bridge for image restoration.Pattern Recognition, 165:111627, 2025

Yuang Wang, Siyeop Yoon, Pengfei Jin, Matthew Tivnan, Sifan Song, Zhennong Chen, Rui Hu, Li Zhang, Quanzheng Li, Zhiqiang Chen, and Dufan Wu. Implicit image-to-image schrödinger bridge for image restoration.Pattern Recognition, 165:111627, 2025

2025
[44]

Topological flow matching

Kacper Wyrwal, Ismail Ilkan Ceylan, and Alexander Tong. Topological flow matching. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

2026
[45]

Regularized schrödinger bridge: Alleviat- ing distortion and exposure bias in solving inverse problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11686, 2025

Qing Yao, Lijian Gao, Qirong Mao, and Ming Dong. Regularized schrödinger bridge: Alleviat- ing distortion and exposure bias in solving inverse problems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11686, 2025. 39

2025 arXiv
[46]

Learning non-equilibrium diffusions with schrödinger bridges: from exactly solvable to simulation-free.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:119861–119898, 2026

Stephen Zhang and Michael Stumpf. Learning non-equilibrium diffusions with schrödinger bridges: from exactly solvable to simulation-free.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:119861–119898, 2026

2026
[47]

Diffusion bridge implicit models

Kaiwen Zheng, Guande He, Jianfei Chen, Fan Bao, and Jun Zhu. Diffusion bridge implicit models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2025, pages 81857– 81884, 2025

2025
[48]

Denoising diffusion bridge models

Linqi Zhou, Aaron Lou, Samar Khanna, and Stefano Ermon. Denoising diffusion bridge models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 8160–8171, 2024

2024
[49]

Unidb: A unified diffusion bridge framework via stochastic optimal control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05749, 2025

Kaizhen Zhu, Mokai Pan, Yuexin Ma, Yanwei Fu, Jingyi Yu, Jingya Wang, and Ye Shi. Unidb: A unified diffusion bridge framework via stochastic optimal control.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05749, 2025. 40

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Anderson.An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis

T.W. Anderson.An Introduction to Multivariate Statistical Analysis. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley, 2003

work page 2003

[2] [2]

Springer, 2006

Saugata Basu, Richard Pollack, and Marie-Françoise Roy.Algorithms in real algebraic geometry. Springer, 2006

work page 2006

[3] [3]

Spectral analysis of diffusion models with application to schedule design.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:2073–2127, 2026

Roi Benita, Miki Elad, and Joseph Keshet. Spectral analysis of diffusion models with application to schedule design.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:2073–2127, 2026

work page 2026

[4] [4]

The perception-distortion tradeoff

Yochai Blau and Tomer Michaeli. The perception-distortion tradeoff. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 6228–6237, 2018

2018

[5] [5]

The schrödinger bridge between gaussian measures has a closed form

Charlotte Bunne, Ya-Ping Hsieh, Marco Cuturi, and Andreas Krause. The schrödinger bridge between gaussian measures has a closed form. InInternational Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 5802–5833. PMLR, 2023

work page 2023

[6] [6]

Analytic Bridge Diffusions for Controlled Path Generation

Michael Chertkov. Analytic bridge diffusions for controlled path generation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.02961, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026

[7] [7]

Cover and J.A

T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas.Elements of Information Theory. Wiley, 2012

work page 2012

[8] [8]

Colored Noise Diffusion Sampling

Hadar Davidson, Noam Issachar, and Sagie Benaim. Colored noise diffusion sampling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30332, 2026

work page Pith review arXiv 2026