Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Generative Distribution Prediction: A Unified Approach to Multimodal Learning

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Generative Distribution Prediction bounds point-prediction risk by the generator's Wasserstein error plus a vanishing sampling term.

desk verdict Useful formalization of generate-and-select prediction, but Theorem 1 has a real proof gap and Theorem 2 leans on an unproved prior result. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07090 v2 pith:BOHUPR3Z submitted 2025-02-10 stat.ML cs.AIcs.LG

Xinyu Tian , Xiaotong Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.MLcs.AIcs.LG MSC 62G0862H3068T07
keywords generativedistributionpredictionmultimodallearningconditionaldiffusionmodelsWassersteindistanceexcessriskdomainadaptationtransferquantileregression
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

The paper proposes Generative Distribution Prediction (GDP): before predicting, generate a synthetic sample of responses from an estimated conditional distribution, then pick the point prediction that minimizes a user-chosen loss on that sample. The central claim is that this two-step recipe transfers the burden of prediction accuracy to the fidelity of the generative model. Theorem 1 bounds the excess prediction risk by the Wasserstein-1 distance between the estimated and true conditional distributions, plus a sampling error that vanishes as the synthetic sample size grows. If the claim holds, any high-fidelity conditional generator becomes a general-purpose predictor that adapts to squared, absolute, hinge, pinball, or semantic-similarity losses without retraining. That matters because supervised learning on text and image responses, where the loss is often chosen after the fact, could be reduced to the single problem of generating good conditional samples.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Theorem 1's inequality, which couples global distributional fidelity to local risk. It is proved by Kantorovich-Rubinstein duality to transfer Wasserstein distance into a uniform bound on loss discrepancy, then an empirical-process concentration argument over the parameter space bounds the synthetic-sample excess risk. The diffusion-specific rate comes from a latent-space Gaussian diffusion model: an encoder maps responses to embeddings, a conditional diffusion score-matching network estimates the latent density in a Hölder class, and a Lipschitz decoder reconstructs responses. The dual-level shared embedding assumption lets a source task's encoder, decoder, and feature map be reused for the target task, which is what makes transfer learning compatible with the theoretical bound.

What would settle it

In the simulation setup of Section 4.4, where the true conditional distribution is known, compute GDP's empirical excess risk for $m = 1, 10, 100, 1000$ and compare it against the predicted $m^{-1/2} \log m$ decay and the measured Wasserstein error; if the risk does not track that curve, Theorem 1's Lipschitz or variance assumptions are violated for this setup.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is a reduction: point prediction error is controlled by distribution estimation error. For a loss Lipschitz in the prediction and under a variance-over-risk condition, the excess risk of the GDP predictor satisfies $\mathbb{E}\, R(\theta_0, \hat{\theta}) \le (1+\beta)\, \mathbb{E}\, W(\hat{P}_{y_t|x_t}, P_{y_t|x_t}) + 2^{15} c_v^{1/2} d_\theta\, m^{-1/2} \log m$. Therefore, when the synthetic sample size $m$ is large, the prediction quality is bounded by the generator's Wasserstein error; improving the conditional generator is a sufficient route to improving any downstream supervised task. For diffusion generators with transfer learning, Theorem 2 bounds the Wasserstein term by a rate $n^{-r_u/(d_u+d_h+2r_u)} \log^{m_u} n$ plus the reconstruction error of the pretrained encoder-decoder. This gives a concrete statistical guarantee for using conditional diffusion models as the generative backbone of a prediction method.

Load-bearing premise

The guarantee collapses if the conditional generator's Wasserstein error is not small, and for the diffusion version this requires the pretrained encoder-decoder to reconstruct target responses with negligible error and the latent conditional density to fall in the assumed smoothness class; neither is verified for real text and image responses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any conditional generator with small Wasserstein error yields a point predictor whose excess risk is small under any Lipschitz loss; distribution estimation replaces loss-specific model design.
  • With a fixed generator, increasing the synthetic sample size $m$ reduces sampling error like $m^{-1/2} \log m$ until the Wasserstein generation error dominates.
  • A single trained diffusion-GDP model can answer many downstream prediction tasks from the same synthetic sample, such as all quantiles of the response under the pinball loss.
  • Transfer learning with shared embeddings lets a source-domain generator be adapted to a target domain, with the theory showing the target benefit depends on source pretraining quality through the reconstruction-error term.
  • Empirically, GDP selection among candidate captions or answers improves semantic similarity over selecting a single generated output, consistent with the prediction that $m>1$ helps when the generator is imperfect.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the reduction is correct, generative-model benchmarks could be reframed around downstream prediction loss: a generator that improves Wasserstein distance should improve any GDP-based predictor, making prediction tasks a practical probe of generative fidelity.
  • The bound suggests a diagnostic: on a validation set, estimate the generator's Wasserstein error and compare achieved excess risk to the predicted curve; a large gap would indicate the Lipschitz or variance assumptions are violated in practice.
  • For non-Lipschitz losses such as hard 0-1 classification, the theorem as stated does not directly apply; an extension would likely need margin conditions or smoothed surrogates, and the paper's classification experiment hints such an extension may hold.
  • The framework's advantage should grow with modality heterogeneity, because its value is largest when hand-designed losses are poor summaries of response structure; this is testable by comparing GDP against task-specific supervised models on increasingly heterogeneous response spaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Generative Distribution Prediction (GDP), a framework for supervised prediction that first fits a conditional generative model to the distribution of the response given predictors (e.g., a diffusion model), then draws a synthetic sample of size m from the fitted conditional distribution and minimizes an empirical loss to produce a point prediction. The main theoretical result (Theorem 1) bounds the expected excess risk of the GDP point predictor by the Wasserstein distance between the true and generated conditional distributions plus an O(m^{-1/2} log m) sampling error. Theorem 2 extends this to diffusion models used with transfer learning, under assumptions on reconstruction error and on the latent conditional density. The empirical section evaluates GDP on Yelp rating prediction, COCO image captioning, WikiQA question answering, and simulated adaptive quantile regression, reporting gains over several supervised baselines.

Significance. The core idea of the paper is attractive: if a conditional generator estimates P_{y|x} accurately in Wasserstein distance, then point predictions obtained by risk minimization on synthetic samples should inherit that accuracy. If rigorously established, this would provide a clean, model-agnostic reduction from prediction risk to generation error, with broad applicability to multimodal and transfer-learning settings. The manuscript also makes a useful empirical contribution by testing the framework across tabular, text, and image tasks. However, the significance of the theoretical contribution is currently diminished by a load-bearing gap in the proof of Theorem 1 and by the non-self-contained proof of Theorem 2; the stated results do not follow from the assumptions as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.2 / Appendix A (proof of Theorem 1)] The first step of the proof asserts |R(θ0,θ) − R̃(θ0,θ)| ≤ β W(P̂_{y_t|x_t}, P_{y_t|x_t}) by Kantorovich–Rubinstein duality. This requires the function y ↦ ℓ(θ,y) − ℓ(θ0,y) to be Lipschitz in y with constant controlled by β, but Assumption 1 only states sup_{x_t,y_t}|ℓ(θ1,y_t) − ℓ(θ2,y_t)| ≤ β‖θ1−θ2‖, which is a uniform bound over y and does not imply Lipschitz continuity in y. For example, with y ∈ [0,1], θ ∈ [0,1], and ℓ(θ,y)=1_{y>1/2}θ, Assumption 1 holds with β=1; taking P=δ_{0.49} and Q=δ_{0.51} gives W(P,Q)=0.02 but |E_P[ℓ(1,Y)−ℓ(0,Y)] − E_Q[ℓ(1,Y)−ℓ(0,Y)]|=1. The asserted inequality therefore fails under the stated assumptions. Since this inequality is the foundation of the proof, Theorem 1 and its Corollary 1 are not established as written.
  2. [Appendix A (proof of Theorem 1, entropy bound)] The proof states H(u,L) ≤ (1/dθ) log(2Bβ/u) for the class L = {ℓ(θ,·), θ ∈ [−cb,cb]^dθ}. This is dimensionally inconsistent: for a dθ-dimensional Lipschitz parameter class the metric or bracketing entropy should scale as dθ log(C/u) (equivalently, covering number ~ (C/u)^{dθ}), not as (1/dθ) log(C/u). The stated bound would imply a covering number that is subpolynomial in 1/u for dθ>1, which is not correct. This step is used to derive the synthetic sampling error term c2 m^{-1/2} log m with c2 = 2^{15} c_v^{1/2}/dθ, so the proof's derivation of the sampling error is not rigorous.
  3. [Section C.2 / Theorem 2] The proof of Theorem 2 invokes 'Theorem 2 of [45]' to bound E W(P̄_{u_t|x_t}, P̂_{u_t|x_t}), where [45] is the authors' own arXiv preprint (arXiv:2405.16837). That result is neither proved nor stated in this manuscript, and the preprint is not independently verified. Since Theorem 2 is the advertised statistical guarantee for diffusion-GDP, the paper should provide a self-contained proof of the latent-space Wasserstein bound or explicitly state it as an assumption rather than importing it from an unpublished source.
  4. [Section C.2 / Assumptions 3 and 4] The diffusion guarantee in Theorem 2 depends on two strong conditions that are not verified for text or image responses: (i) the pretrained encoder–decoder has small reconstruction error ε_s on the target, and (ii) the latent conditional density takes the specific form exp(−c1‖u‖^2/2) k_t(u,h(x)) with k_t in a Hölder ball. If ε_s is not negligible, the bound O(n^{−r_u/(d_u+d_h+2r_u)} log^{m_u} n + ε_s) is vacuous. The manuscript acknowledges that ε_s is 'typically' negligible but gives no empirical or theoretical check for the settings in Section 4; this should be discussed explicitly, with at least some diagnostic of reconstruction error in the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.2] The GDP selection rule over m candidate captions by minimizing average cosine dissimilarity is equivalent to minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding as widely used in text generation and machine translation; this connection should be cited (e.g., Kumar and Byrne, 2004; Freitag et al., 2022).
  2. [Table 3 / Section 4.4] The text claims GDP 'achieves lower RMSE and MAD than both XGBoost and DQR across the overall evaluation metrics, except in two situations,' but at the 20% quantile in Case I the GDP RMSE (0.93) is higher than DQR's (0.92) and at the 50% quantile they tie; the wording should be adjusted to reflect the per-quantile comparisons accurately.
  3. [Section 3.2] The statement that 'no prior work has combined these modalities under a unified diffusion framework' is too strong; multimodal diffusion models already exist, so the novelty claim should be narrowed to the specific shared-embedding transfer design.
  4. [Throughout] The notation E R(θ0, θ̂) does not specify which randomness the expectation is over; the proof takes expectations with respect to the synthetic sample and the training randomness, so the statement of Theorem 1 should clarify this explicitly.
  5. [Figure 3] The text says the test set has 5,504 samples but the figure caption says 5,054; this number should be corrected for consistency.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Diffusion-GDP guarantee imports its core rate from the same authors' prior theorem; Theorem 1 itself is self-contained.

  1. self citation load bearing [Appendix C.2, Proof of Theorem 2 (Conditional diffusion via transfer learning)]
    "Under Assumption 4 and by applying Theorem 2 of [45], it follows that E [ W ( P̄_{u_t|x_t}, P̂_{u_t|x_t} ) ] = O( n^{ - r_u/(d_u+d_h+2r_u) } log^{m_u} n )."

    Theorem 2 is the paper's main statistical guarantee for diffusion-GDP. Its proof decomposes W(P^0_{y_t|x_t}, P̂_{y_t|x_t}) into a latent diffusion term plus a reconstruction error, but the latent diffusion term—the rate n^{-r_u/(d_u+d_h+2r_u)}—is not derived in this paper; it is taken directly from Theorem 2 of [45], an arXiv preprint by the same two authors. The rest of the proof only adds the Lipschitz decoder and the ε_s reconstruction error, so the central convergence rate rests entirely on that self-citation. If [45, Theorem 2] were unavailable or unverified, the present Theorem 2 would have no proof of its dominant term. This is a load-bearing self-citation rather than an independent derivation.

full rationale

Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 are not circular: the excess-risk bound is an oracle inequality proved from Assumptions 1–2 and an empirical-process tail lemma; the Wasserstein error is an input, and the m^{-1/2} log m sampling term is derived rather than fitted. The quantile corollary follows by checking the pinball loss against the conditions of Theorem 1. The empirical selection step in the captioning and Q&A experiments is a medoid/reranking operation that does not use reference labels for selection, so it is not a fitted constant disguised as a prediction; at most it is a novelty or attribution concern. A proof gap noted by the skeptic—Theorem 1's Kantorovich–Rubinstein step appears to require loss Lipschitz in y while Assumption 1 only states Lipschitz in θ—is a correctness risk, not a circular step, so it does not raise the circularity score. The main circularity concern is concentrated in Appendix C.2: the core latent-diffusion Wasserstein rate in Theorem 2 is imported without proof from [45], a same-author preprint. Because that rate is the substantive content of the diffusion-GDP guarantee, the derivation chain is partially supported by a load-bearing self-citation, yielding a score of 4 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central risk bound is built on standard empirical process theory plus two regularity assumptions on the loss. The diffusion-specific rate is inherited from the authors' prior preprint [45], which is a notable dependency. The only hand-tuned method parameter is m. No constants are fit to data in the theory.

free parameters (1)
  • Synthetic sample size m = 10 (captioning), 50 (QA), 50 (Yelp), 1000 (quantile regression)
    Chosen by hand per task; the theory shows larger m reduces sampling error, and Section 4 describes m as tunable, so the empirical claims depend on these choices.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Lemma 1 empirical process Bernstein inequality (Theorem 3 of [39], Lemma 11 of [45])
    Used to control the maximum of empirical loss deviations in the proof of Theorem 1 (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption Assumption 1: loss is Lipschitz in theta over a bounded parameter domain
    Needed to convert Wasserstein distance between conditional distributions into a bound on loss differences (Section 2.2).
  • domain assumption Assumption 2: conditional variance of loss difference is bounded by a multiple of the excessive risk
    Bernstein-type condition required for the concentration argument in Theorem 1.
  • domain assumption Assumption 3: pretrained encoder-decoder has small reconstruction error eps_s and Lipschitz decoder
    Bridges latent-space diffusion error to original response space in Theorem 2 (Appendix C.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumption 4: latent conditional density has Gaussian-factor form with k_t in a Holder ball
    A specific structural assumption needed to apply the diffusion error rate from [45]; not verified for real multimodal data.
  • ad hoc to paper Shared embedding structure Eq. (7): P_{u_j|x_j} = P_j(., h(x_j)) across source and target
    Defines what transferable information is assumed shared in the dual-level embedding framework (Section 3.1).
  • domain assumption Theorem 2 of [45]: diffusion generation Wasserstein rate for conditional densities in Holder balls
    Imported without proof from the authors' own prior preprint; the main rate in Theorem 2 of the present paper is obtained by citing this result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generative Distribution Prediction: A Unified Approach to Multimodal Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOHUPR3Z

@misc{pith2026250207090,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generative Distribution Prediction: A Unified Approach to Multimodal Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOHUPR3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07090}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate prediction with multimodal data-encompassing tabular, textual, and visual inputs or outputs-is fundamental to advancing analytics in diverse application domains. Traditional approaches often struggle to integrate heterogeneous data types while maintaining high predictive accuracy. We introduce Generative Distribution Prediction (GDP), a novel framework that leverages multimodal synthetic data generation-such as conditional diffusion models-to enhance predictive performance across structured and unstructured modalities. GDP is model-agnostic, compatible with any high-fidelity generative model, and supports transfer learning for domain adaptation. We establish a rigorous theoretical foundation for GDP, providing statistical guarantees on its predictive accuracy when using diffusion models as the generative backbone. By estimating the data-generating distribution and adapting to various loss functions for risk minimization, GDP enables accurate point predictions across multimodal settings. We empirically validate GDP on four supervised learning tasks-tabular data prediction, question answering, image captioning, and adaptive quantile regression-demonstrating its versatility and effectiveness across diverse domains.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07090 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conditional diffusion models for target domain adaptation through shared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of star rating distributions between non-enthusiastic reviewers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cosine similarity scores for the diffusion method vs. the BLIP model on a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative boxplots of cosine similarity scores for three question-answering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    Tian and X

    X. Tian and X. Shen. Enhancing accuracy in generative models via knowledge transfer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.16837, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    Llama 3 model card

    AI@Meta. Llama 3 model card. 2024

    2024

  3. [2]

    B. D. Anderson. Reverse-time diffusion equation models. Stochastic Processes and their Applications, 12(3):313–326, 1982

    1982

  4. [3]

    Austin, D

    J. Austin, D. D. Johnson, J. Ho, D. Tarlow, and R. Van Den Berg. Structured de- noising diffusion models in discrete state-spaces. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:17981–17993, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Baltrušaitis, C

    T. Baltrušaitis, C. Ahuja, and L.-P. Morency. Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 41(2):423–443, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    J. O. Berger. Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis. Springer, New York, 2nd edition, 1985

    work page 1985

  7. [6]

    L. Breiman. Random forests. Machine Learning, 45(1):5–32, 2001

    2001

  8. [7]

    Chang and C.-J

    C.-C. Chang and C.-J. Lin. Libsvm: a library for support vector machines. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology (TIST), 2(3):1–27, 2011

    work page 2011

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

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

    2023

  2. [9]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. InProceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 785–794, 2016

    2016

  3. [10]

    X. Chen, H. Ma, J. Wan, B. Li, and T. Xia. Multi-view 3d object detection network for autonomous driving. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1907–1915, 2017

    1907

  4. [11]

    Cowie and R

    R. Cowie and R. R. Cornelius. Describing the emotional states that are expressed in speech. Speech Communication, 40(1-2):5–32, 2003

    2003

  5. [12]

    D. R. Cox. The regression analysis of binary sequences. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 20(2):215–242, 1958

    1958

  6. [13]

    B. Dai, X. Shen, and J. Wang. Embedding learning. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(537):307–319, 2022. 28

    2022

  7. [14]

    Devlin, M.-W

    J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies...

    2019

  8. [15]

    Dhariwal and A

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

    2021

  9. [16]

    Esteva, B

    A. Esteva, B. Kuprel, R. A. Novoa, J. Ko, S. M. Swetter, H. M. Blau, and S. Thrun. Dermatologist-level classification of skin cancer with deep neural networks. Na- ture, 542(7639):115–118, 2017

    2017

  10. [17]

    text-embedding-004 model documentation, 2025

    Google. text-embedding-004 model documentation, 2025

    2025

  11. [18]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

    2016

  12. [19]

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

    2020

  13. [20]

    L. V . Kantorovich and G. S. Rubinstein. On a space of completely additive functions. Vestnik Leningrad University, 13:52–59, 1958

    1958

  14. [21]

    J. Kim, C. Lee, and N. Park. Stasy: Score-based tabular data synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.04018, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  15. [22]

    D. P. Kingma and P. Dhariwal. Glow: Generative flow with invertible 1x1 convo- lutions. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  16. [23]

    Koenker and G

    R. Koenker and G. Bassett. Regression quantiles. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 46(1):33–50, 1978

    1978

  17. [24]

    Kotelnikov, D

    A. Kotelnikov, D. Baranchuk, I. Rubachev, and A. Babenko. Tabddpm: Modelling tabular data with diffusion models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 17564–17579. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    J. Li, D. Li, C. Xiong, and S. Hoi. Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre- training for unified vision-language understanding and generation. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 12888–12900. PMLR, 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    L. Lin, Z. Li, R. Li, X. Li, and J. Gao. Diffusion models for time-series applications: a survey. Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering, 25(1):19– 41, 2024

    2024

  20. [27]

    Z. Liu. Yelp review rating prediction: Machine learning and deep learning models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06690, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. X. Morris, W. Zhao, J. T. Chiu, V . Shmatikov, and A. M. Rush. Language model inversion. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 29

    2024

  22. [29]

    Ngiam, A

    J. Ngiam, A. Khosla, M. Kim, J. Nam, H. Lee, and A. Y . Ng. Multimodal deep learning. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11), pages 689–696, 2011

    2011

  23. [30]

    K. Oko, S. Akiyama, and T. Suzuki. Diffusion models are minimax optimal distribution estimators. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 26517–26582. PMLR, 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    O. H. M. Padilla, W. Tansey, and Y . Chen. Quantile regression with relu networks: Estimators and minimax rates. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 23(247):1– 42, 2022

    2022

  25. [32]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learni...

    2011

  26. [33]

    Radford, J

    A. Radford, J. W. Kim, C. Hallacy, A. Ramesh, G. Goh, S. Agarwal, G. Sastry, A. Askell, P. Mishkin, J. Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In International conference on machine learning, pages 8748–8763. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Rajapakse

    T. Rajapakse. Simple transformers. https://github.com/ ThilinaRajapakse/simpletransformers, 2020

    2020

  28. [35]

    Ramachandram and G

    D. Ramachandram and G. W. Taylor. Deep multimodal learning: A survey on recent advances and trends. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 34(6):96–108, 2017

    2017

  29. [36]

    N. Reimers. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Rish et al

    I. Rish et al. An empirical study of the naive bayes classifier. In IJCAI 2001 workshop on empirical methods in artificial intelligence, volume 3, pages 41–46. Seattle, USA, 2001

    2001

  31. [38]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox. U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. In Medical Image Computing and Computer- Assisted Intervention (MICCAI), pages 234–241. Springer, 2015

    2015

  32. [39]

    Shen and W

    X. Shen and W. H. Wong. Convergence rate of sieve estimates. The Annals of Statistics, pages 580–615, 1994

    1994

  33. [40]

    Sohl-Dickstein, E

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

    2015

  34. [41]

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020. 30

    2020

  35. [42]

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

    2021

  36. [43]

    Steinwart and A

    I. Steinwart and A. Christmann. Estimating conditional quantiles with the help of the pinball loss. Bernoulli, 17(1):211–225, 2011

    2011

  37. [44]

    Sugiyama, S

    M. Sugiyama, S. Nakajima, H. Kashima, P. von Bünau, and M. Kawanabe. Covari- ate shift adaptation by importance weighted cross validation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 8:985–1005, 2007

    2007

  38. [46]

    Vinyals, A

    O. Vinyals, A. Toshev, S. Bengio, and D. Erhan. Show and tell: A neural image caption generator. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3156–3164, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    J. Wang, X. Shen, Y . Sun, and A. P. Qu. Classification with unstructured predictors with an application to sentiment analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(510):711–725, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Yang, W.-t

    Y . Yang, W.-t. Yih, and C. Meek. WikiQA: A challenge dataset for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2013–2018, Lisbon, Portugal, Sept. 2015. Association for Computational Linguistics

    2015

  41. [49]

    Y . Yuan, J. Ding, C. Shao, D. Jin, and Y . Li. Spatio-temporal diffusion point processes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12403, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Zhang, C

    C. Zhang, C. Zhang, M. Zhang, and I. S. Kweon. Text-to-image diffusion model in generative ai: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07909, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Zheng and N

    S. Zheng and N. Charoenphakdee. Diffusion models for missing value imputation in tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.17128, 2022. 31

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.