Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Generalized Score Matching: Bridging $f$-Divergence and Statistical Estimation Under Correlated Noise

T0 review · 4 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 The paper claims that for any f-divergence, the derivative with respect to the noise covariance of the divergence between two channel-output densities equals minus half the generalized Fisher information, uniting score matching with…

desk verdict The central identity in Theorem 1 is off by a factor of 1-alpha_t because Lemma 1's proof drops the scale factor in the Gaussian exponent, so the main result is false as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19288 v1 pith:X6VV26PL submitted 2025-04-27 cs.IT math.IT

Yirong Shen , Lu Gan , Cong Ling This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ITmath.IT MSC 94A1762B10
keywords f-divergencescorematchinggeneralizedFisherinformationcorrelatedGaussiannoisevectorchannelDeBruijnidentitymismatchedestimationdiffusiongenerativemodels
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

This paper sets out to establish a bridge between two standard learning objectives. For a linear Gaussian channel with non-isotropic (correlated) noise, it claims that the gradient of any f-divergence between the output distributions, taken with respect to the noise covariance matrix, equals minus one half of a generalized Fisher information matrix built from score functions. If true, this makes score matching a gradient calculation of a whole family of divergences, including Kullback-Leibler, Jensen-Shannon, and Hellinger, rather than a separate objective, and extends classical results that were limited to scalar or isotropic Gaussian noise. The paper further derives a mismatched version of De Bruijn's identity for such channels and points to applications in diffusion and generative models with structured noise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the generalized Fisher information matrix $I_f(P\|Q)$ of Eq. (5): roughly, the expected squared gradient of the likelihood ratio $dP/dQ$, weighted by $f''(dP/dQ)$. The other essential piece is Lemma 1, the matrix heat equation, which asserts that the derivative of a channel-output density with respect to the noise covariance $\Sigma$ is half its Laplacian in the output variable. Together these convert the f-divergence's dependence on the noise covariance into an expectation of score differences, the quantity score matching is built to estimate.

What would settle it

Compute both sides of Eq. (7) for scalar Gaussian $p$ and $q$ with $\tilde\alpha_t=1/2$ and $\Sigma=[\sigma^2]$: take the derivative of $D_f(p(y)\|q(y))$ with respect to $\sigma^2$ and compare it with $-\frac{1}{2}I_f(p(y)\|q(y))$. For $f(t)=t\log t$ a one-line Gaussian calculation shows the two sides differ by the factor $1-\tilde\alpha_t=1/2$, which settles whether the stated identity is correct.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is Theorem 1: for the vector channel $Y=\sqrt{\tilde\alpha_t}HX+\sqrt{1-\tilde\alpha_t}N$ with $N\sim\mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma)$ independent of $X$, the covariance-gradient of the f-divergence satisfies $$\nabla_\Sigma D_f(p(y)\|q(y;\$\theta$)) = -\frac{1}{2} I_f(p(y)\|q(y;\$\theta$)),$$ where $I_f$ is the generalized Fisher information defined in Eq. (5) as the expectation of $f''(dP/dQ)$ times the outer product of the gradient of the likelihood ratio. The proof routes through a matrix heat equation for output densities and an integration by parts that leaves only the score-mismatch term. Setting $f(t)=t\log t$ yields Corollary 1, which identifies the covariance-gradient of Kullback-Leibler divergence with the standard relative Fisher information and thereby extends De Bruijn's identity to mismatched non-isotropic Gaussian models.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the matrix heat equation, which says that differentiating the output density with respect to the noise covariance is exactly half the Laplacian of that density; for the channel in Eq. (4) the correct factor appears to be $(1-\tilde\alpha_t)/2$, so the theorem as stated does not follow from the proof given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every strictly convex generator $f$, the same identity holds, so KL divergence, Jensen-Shannon divergence, and squared Hellinger distance all become gradient-compatible with score matching in vector Gaussian channels.
  • The classical relations between relative entropy and score matching for scalar and isotropic Gaussian channels are recovered as special cases, making the framework a common umbrella for the existing results.
  • Corollary 1 gives a mismatched generalization of De Bruijn's identity, so gradient descent on the noise covariance $\Sigma$ can be used to tune injected noise in diffusion models by score-matching computations.
  • Non-isotropic, blurring, and blue-noise diffusion models fit into the same theoretical setting, so the same score-matching objective can serve as their training loss.
  • Because the Hessian of the objective appears through the generalized Fisher information, the framework naturally accommodates second-order optimization of generative models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the Gaussian derivative in Lemma 1 indicates that the proof drops the factor $1-\tilde\alpha_t$; reparametrizing the noise covariance as the total covariance $\Sigma_{\text{tot}}=(1-\tilde\alpha_t)\Sigma$ would make the identity $\nabla_{\Sigma_{\text{tot}}}D_f=-\frac{1}{2}I_f$ go through, suggesting the intended statement is correct for the total noise covariance.
  • The same covariance-gradient argument may extend to noise families whose densities obey a generalized heat equation, such as elliptically contoured distributions, with the Laplacian replaced by an appropriate diffusion operator.
  • If the identity holds after the covariance reparametrization, it gives a concrete estimation recipe: compute score-matching losses under correlated noise to estimate the optimal injected covariance, testable on Gaussian mixtures where both sides of Eq. (7) can be evaluated in closed form.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the vector Gaussian channel Y = sqrt(alpha_t) H X + sqrt(1-alpha_t) N with N ~ N(0,Sigma) and derives a claimed identity between the gradient of an f-divergence between output densities with respect to Sigma and a generalized Fisher information matrix. Theorem 1 states that nabla_Sigma D_f(p(y)||q(y;theta)) = -1/2 I_f(p(y)||q(y;theta)), with Corollary 1 giving the KL case. The authors present this as a unification of score matching and f-divergence minimization under correlated noise, and as an extension of De Bruijn's identity. The proof relies on a matrix heat-equation lemma (Lemma 1) and a divergence-integral lemma (Lemma 2).

Significance. If the claimed identity were correct, it would provide a clean and useful bridge between f-divergence minimization and generalized score matching for non-isotropic Gaussian channels, and it would extend known relations for scalar and isotropic channels in a natural way. The definition of generalized Fisher information in Eq. (5) is self-contained, and the overall derivation is not circular. However, the central theorem is not supported by the proof: the matrix heat equation in Lemma 1 is missing a factor of 1-alpha_t, so Theorem 1 and Corollary 1 are false as stated. The proof of Lemma 2 also has a gap. Thus the paper's main mathematical contribution is not established, despite the timeliness of the topic.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix, proof of Lemma 1; Eq. (8)] The claimed matrix heat equation is missing a factor of beta_t = 1 - alpha_t. For the channel in Eq. (4), the conditional density contains exp[-Q/(2 beta_t)]. Differentiating with respect to Sigma gives the bracket -1/2 Sigma^{-1} + (1/(2 beta_t)) G, whereas the Hessian with respect to y gives -(1/beta_t) Sigma^{-1} + (1/beta_t^2) G. Comparing these two expressions yields nabla_Sigma p(y) = (beta_t/2) Delta_y p(y), not (1/2) Delta_y p(y). The proof in the Appendix drops the 1/beta_t factors in both the first derivative and the Hessian computation. Since Lemma 1 is applied to both p and q in the proof of Theorem 1, the factor beta_t/2 propagates into Eq. (11).
  2. [Theorem 1, Eq. (7); Corollary 1, Eq. (15)] Because of the missing factor in Lemma 1, the central identity is false as stated. The correct statement is nabla_Sigma D_f(p(y)||q(y;theta)) = -(1-alpha_t)/2 I_f(p(y)||q(y;theta)), and similarly for the KL case. The factor 1-alpha_t cannot be absorbed by redefining Sigma, since Sigma is the covariance of N in Eq. (4) while the noise covariance entering Y is (1-alpha_t)Sigma. For a time-dependent schedule with alpha_t not equal to 0, the claimed equality in Eq. (7) is off by a time-dependent factor that may be arbitrarily far from 1. Corollary 1 and the subsequent gradient-descent update in Section III-B inherit this error.
  3. [Lemma 2, Appendix] The proof does not establish the claimed vanishing. From Gauss's theorem, the integral equals the limit of a surface flux; the argument that the volume integral is finite, written as |integral nabla dot (q f(p/q)) dy| <= infinity, does not imply that the limit is zero. One needs a stronger decay condition on the gradient flux. As written, the discarding of the first term in Eq. (13) is not justified.
  4. [Proof of Theorem 1, Eqs. (12)-(14)] The passage from Eq. (12) to Eq. (14) is not fully justified. If Delta denotes the Hessian of f(p/q), that Hessian contains the term f'(p/q) nabla^2(p/q), which is dropped in the displayed simplification without an explicit integration-by-parts argument. If Delta denotes the scalar Laplacian, Eq. (12) mixes a vector with a scalar and is ill-defined. Either way, the calculation as printed does not rigorously support the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [References] Reference [1] is a duplicate of reference [20]; the same paper is cited twice.
  2. [Notation, Eq. (12) and footnote 2] The symbol Delta is used for both the scalar Laplacian and the Hessian. In the proof of Theorem 1 this ambiguity makes equations such as Eq. (12) hard to parse; please use distinct symbols, for example Delta for the Laplacian and nabla^2 or Hess for the Hessian.
  3. [Throughout] There are typos: 'defiend' in Lemma 2, 'Kullback-Leible r' in Section III-B, and 'f score matching' should be 'f-score matching'.
  4. [Theorem 1, assumptions] The growth assumption in Theorem 1, that 'their logarithms have growth at most polynomial at infinity', is stated backwards: for a density that decays quickly, the log-density tends to -infinity. Please restate the precise condition on the tail behavior or on the score functions.
  5. [Section III-B, update rule] The displayed update rule after Eq. (15) writes Sigma <- Sigma - xi D_KL(p(y)||q(y;theta)), but this subtracts a scalar divergence rather than the gradient with respect to Sigma. If gradient descent is intended, the equation should use nabla_Sigma D_KL.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the paper is a self-contained mathematical derivation, and the alleged factor error is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, Theorem 1, asserts an identity between the covariance-matrix gradient of an f-divergence and a generalized Fisher information. The two objects are defined independently: D_f in Eq. (3) is the standard Csiszár f-divergence, and I_f in Eq. (5) is defined as an expectation involving f'' and the gradient of the likelihood ratio. The proof proceeds by differentiating the channel output density with respect to Σ (Lemma 1), applying an integration-by-parts / divergence identity (Lemma 2), and collecting terms. No parameter is fitted to data, no 'prediction' is renamed from a fitted input, and no load-bearing step relies on a self-citation. Citations such as [19], [26], and [27] are used for context and technique, not to supply the identity being proved. Even if, as a referee might argue, Lemma 1 omits a factor of 1/(1−α_t) in the Gaussian exponent and therefore Theorem 1 is false as stated, that is a mathematical correctness or typographical issue, not a circularity: the claimed result does not reduce to its own definition or to a fitted value. The derivation chain is transparent and self-contained, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on density regularity, standard Gaussian heat-flow identities, and finite f-divergence. The proof incorrectly treats the noise covariance as Sigma when it is (1-alpha_t) Sigma, leading to a missing factor (1-alpha_t) in Lemma 1 and therefore in Theorem 1.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Channel output densities p(y) and q(y;theta) are smooth and decay quickly, with logarithms growing at most polynomially at infinity.
    Invoked before Theorem 1 and used in Lemma 2 to justify vanishing boundary terms when integrating by parts over R^m.
  • standard math Gauss's theorem / integration by parts can be applied to the entire space R^m without residual boundary contributions.
    Used in Lemma 2 and in the main proof to drop the total divergence term; validity depends on the decay assumptions.
  • domain assumption The matrix heat equation nabla_Sigma p = (1/2) Delta_y p holds for the channel in Eq. (4).
    This is the paper's Lemma 1, but it is incorrect as stated. The noise covariance in Eq. (4) is (1-alpha_t) Sigma, so the correct relation is nabla_Sigma p = (1-alpha_t)/2 Delta_y p. The proof drops the 1/beta_t factor, which is the critical flaw.
  • domain assumption f is strictly convex with f(1)=0 and has a second derivative; the f-divergence D_f is finite.
    Required for the definition of f-divergence (Definition 2) and for the manipulations in Theorem 1.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Generalized Score Matching: Bridging $f$-Divergence and Statistical Estimation Under Correlated Noise." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6VV26PL

@misc{pith2026250419288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Generalized Score Matching: Bridging $f$-Divergence and Statistical Estimation Under Correlated Noise},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6VV26PL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19288}
}
abstract

Relative Fisher information, also known as score matching, is a recently introduced learning method for parameter estimation. Fundamental relations between relative entropy and score matching have been established in the literature for scalar and isotropic Gaussian channels. This paper demonstrates that such relations hold for a much larger class of observation models. We introduce the vector channel where the perturbation is non-isotropic Gaussian noise. For such channels, we derive new representations that connect the $f$-divergence between two distributions to the estimation loss induced by mismatch at the decoder. This approach not only unifies but also greatly extends existing results from both the isotropic Gaussian and classical relative entropy frameworks. Building on this generalization, we extend De Bruijn's identity to mismatched non-isotropic Gaussian models and demonstrate that the connections to generative models naturally follow as a consequence application of this new result.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mismatched estimation and relative entropy ,

    S. V erd´ u, “Mismatched estimation and relative entropy ,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory , vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3712–3720, 2010

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Estimation of non-normaliz ed statistical models by score matching

    A. Hyv¨ arinen and P . Dayan, “Estimation of non-normaliz ed statistical models by score matching.” Journal of Machine Learning Research , vol. 6, no. 4, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    Regularized estimation of image statistics by score matching,

    D. P . Kingma and Y . Cun, “Regularized estimation of image statistics by score matching,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 23, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Estimating th e Hessian by back-propagating curvature,

    J. Martens, I. Sutskever, and K. Swersky, “Estimating th e Hessian by back-propagating curvature,” in Proceedings of the 29th International Coference on International Conference on Machine Learning , ser. ICML’12. Madison, WI, USA: Omnipress, 2012, p. 963–970

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    A connection between score matching and den oising au- toencoders,

    P . Vincent, “A connection between score matching and den oising au- toencoders,” Neural Computation, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 1661–1674, 2011

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Score-based generative modeling through stocha stic differential equations,

    Y . Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P . Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Erm on, and B. Poole, “Score-based generative modeling through stocha stic differential equations,” in 9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austr ia, May 3-7, 2021 . OpenReview.net, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=PxTIG12RRHS

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,

    Y . Song and S. Ermon, “Generative modeling by estimating gradients of the data distribution,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Interpretation and generalization of score mat ching,

    S. Lyu, “Interpretation and generalization of score mat ching,” in Pro- ceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Conference on Uncertainty in A rtificial Intelligence, ser. UAI ’09. Arlington, Virginia, USA: AUAI Press, 2009, p. 359–366

    work page 2009

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Constructing non-isotro pic Gaussian diffusion model using isotropic Gaussian diffusion model f or image editing,

    X. Y u, X. Gu, H. Liu, and J. Sun, “Constructing non-isotro pic Gaussian diffusion model using isotropic Gaussian diffusion model f or image editing,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 36, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Blue noise for diffusion models,

    X. Huang, C. Salaun, C. V asconcelos, C. Theobalt, C. Ozt ireli, and G. Singh, “Blue noise for diffusion models,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, 2024, pp. 1–11

    2024

  3. [11]

    Blurring diffusion mode ls,

    E. Hoogeboom and T. Salimans, “Blurring diffusion mode ls,” in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa tions, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=OjDkC57x5sz

    2023

  4. [12]

    A note on the eva luation of generative models,

    L. Theis, A. van den Oord, and M. Bethge, “A note on the eva luation of generative models,” in 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings , Y . Bengio and Y . LeCun, Eds., 2016. [Onlin...

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A minimax approach to supervised l earning,

    F. Farnia and D. Tse, “A minimax approach to supervised l earning,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  6. [14]

    Hessian and concavity of mu tual information, differential entropy, and entropy power in li near vector Gaussian channels,

    M. Payaro and D. P . Palomar, “Hessian and concavity of mu tual information, differential entropy, and entropy power in li near vector Gaussian channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 3613–3628, 2009

    2009

  7. [15]

    Entropic characteriz ation of optimal rates for learning Gaussian mixtures,

    Z. Jia, Y . Polyanskiy, and Y . Wu, “Entropic characteriz ation of optimal rates for learning Gaussian mixtures,” in The Thirty Sixth Annual Conference on Learning Theory . PMLR, 2023, pp. 4296–4335

    2023

  8. [16]

    Generative adversar ial nets,

    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. War de-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y . Bengio, “Generative adversar ial nets,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 27, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    A convex duality framework for GAN s,

    F. Farnia and D. Tse, “A convex duality framework for GAN s,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    f -GAN: Training generative neural samplers using variational divergence minimizatio n,

    S. Nowozin, B. Cseke, and R. Tomioka, “ f -GAN: Training generative neural samplers using variational divergence minimizatio n,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  11. [19]

    Gradient of mutual informatio n in linear vector Gaussian channels,

    D. Palomar and S. V erdu, “Gradient of mutual informatio n in linear vector Gaussian channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 141–154, 2006

    2006

  12. [20]

    Mismatched estimation and relative entrop y,

    S. V erd´ u, “Mismatched estimation and relative entrop y,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory , vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 3712–3720, 2010

    2010

  13. [21]

    Theory of statistical estimation,

    R. A. Fisher, “Theory of statistical estimation,” Mathematical Proceed- ings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , vol. 22, no. 5, p. 700–725, 1925

    1925

  14. [22]

    T. M. Cover, Elements of information theory . John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  15. [23]

    On information-type measure of differen ce of probability distributions and indirect observations,

    I. Csisz´ ar, “On information-type measure of differen ce of probability distributions and indirect observations,” Studia Sci. Math. Hungar . , vol. 2, pp. 299–318, 1967

    1967

  16. [24]

    Denoising diffusion prob abilistic models,

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P . Abbeel, “Denoising diffusion prob abilistic models,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 6840– 6851, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels,

    D. Guo, S. Shamai, and S. V erdu, “Mutual information and minimum mean-square error in Gaussian channels,” IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory , vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1261–1282, 2005

    2005

  18. [26]

    Mismatched estimation and rel ative entropy in vector gaussian channels,

    M. Chen and J. Lafferty, “Mismatched estimation and rel ative entropy in vector gaussian channels,” in 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory . IEEE, 2013, pp. 2845–2849

    2013

  19. [27]

    Relative entropy and score function: New infor mation- estimation relationships through arbitrary additive pert urbation,

    D. Guo, “Relative entropy and score function: New infor mation- estimation relationships through arbitrary additive pert urbation,” in 2009 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory . IEEE, 2009, pp. 814–818

    2009

  20. [28]

    A variation al perspective on diffusion-based generative models and score matching,

    C.-W. Huang, J. H. Lim, and A. C. Courville, “A variation al perspective on diffusion-based generative models and score matching,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 22 863–22 876, 2021

    2021

  21. [29]

    Understanding Gaus sian noise mismatch: A Hellinger distance approach,

    K. Huang, C. Shi, L. Gan, and H. Liu, “Understanding Gaus sian noise mismatch: A Hellinger distance approach,” in ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal P rocessing (ICASSP), 2024, pp. 9051–9055

    2024

  22. [30]

    On the analysis of GAN-based image-to-image translation with Gaussian noise injection,

    C. Shi, K. Huang, L. Gan, H. Liu, M. Zhu, N. Wang, and X. Gao, “On the analysis of GAN-based image-to-image translation with Gaussian noise injection,” in The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Maximum lik elihood training of score-based diffusion models,

    Y . Song, C. Durkan, I. Murray, and S. Ermon, “Maximum lik elihood training of score-based diffusion models,” Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 1415–1428, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Lo ssy compres- sion with Gaussian diffusion,

    L. Theis, T. Salimans, M. D. Hoffman, and F. Mentzer, “Lo ssy compres- sion with Gaussian diffusion,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08889 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Principle d hybrids of generative and discriminative models,

    J. A. Lasserre, C. M. Bishop, and T. P . Minka, “Principle d hybrids of generative and discriminative models,” in 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVP R’06), vol. 1. IEEE, 2006, pp. 87–94

    2006

  26. [34]

    Good semi-supervised learning that requires a bad GAN,

    Z. Dai, Z. Y ang, F. Y ang, W. W. Cohen, and R. R. Salakhutdi nov, “Good semi-supervised learning that requires a bad GAN,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    Pi xelde- fend: Leveraging generative models to understand and defen d against adversarial examples,

    Y . Song, T. Kim, S. Nowozin, S. Ermon, and N. Kushman, “Pi xelde- fend: Leveraging generative models to understand and defen d against adversarial examples,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10766 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sliced score matc hing: A scalable approach to density and score estimation,

    Y . Song, S. Garg, J. Shi, and S. Ermon, “Sliced score matc hing: A scalable approach to density and score estimation,” in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence . PMLR, 2020, pp. 574–584

    2020

  29. [37]

    Score-based denoisi ng diffusion with non-isotropic Gaussian noise models,

    V . V oleti, C. Pal, and A. Oberman, “Score-based denoisi ng diffusion with non-isotropic Gaussian noise models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.12254, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    V oid-and-cluster method for dither ar ray generation,

    R. A. Ulichney, “V oid-and-cluster method for dither ar ray generation,” in Human Vision, Visual Processing, and Digital Display IV , vol. 1913. SPIE, 1993, pp. 332–343

    1913

Pith tools

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