Manifold Aware Denoising Score Matching (MAD)
Organizations: Department of Statistics University of Oxford · Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Abstract
A major focus in designing methods for learning distributions defined on manifolds is to alleviate the need to implicitly learn the manifold so that learning can concentrate on the data distribution within the manifold. However, accomplishing this often leads to compute-intensive solutions. In this work, we propose a simple modification to denoising score-matching in the ambient space to implicitly account for the manifold, thereby reducing the burden of learning the manifold while maintaining computational efficiency. Specifically, we propose a simple decomposition of the score function into a known component and a remainder component (the learning target), with the former implicitly including information on where the data manifold resides. We derive known components in analytical form for several important cases, including distributions over rotation matrices and discrete distributions, and use them to demonstrate the utility of this approach in those cases.
Figures & tables
| Method | Volcano | Earthquake | Flood | Fire |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGM-divfree | 0.1272 ± 0.0289 | 0.0602 ± 0.0101 | 0.0579 ± 0.0094 | 0.0779 ± 0.0172 |
| RSGM-ambient | 0.1114 ± 0.0090 | 0.0803 ± 0.0067 | 0.0751 ± 0.0087 | 0.0830 ± 0.0152 |
| DSM | 0.1082 ± 0.0217 | 0.0488 ± 0.0096 | 0.0503 ± 0.0092 | 0.0456 ± 0.0165 |
| MAD (ours) | 0.1030 ± 0.0185 | 0.0526 ± 0.0108 | 0.0500 ± 0.0100 | 0.0452 ± 0.0131 |
| Data size | 827 | 6120 | 4875 | 12809 |
| Method | Sample time (s/1k) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FFF | 0.0230 ± 0.0023 | 0.0242 ± 0.0016 | 0.0204 ± 0.0018 | 0.0040 ± 0.0003 |
| RSGM | 0.0155 ± 0.0025 | 0.0171 ± 0.0024 | 0.0190 ± 0.0043 | 0.4628 ± 0.0190 |
| DSM | 0.0222 ± 0.0021 | 0.0209 ± 0.0046 | 0.0178 ± 0.0031 | 0.2216 ± 0.0350 |
| MAD (ours) | 0.0229 ± 0.0026 | 0.0220 ± 0.0052 | 0.0180 ± 0.0029 | 0.2305 ± 0.0360 |
| Method | Cone | Cyl. | Tet. | Cube | Ico. | Avg. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deng et al. (2020) | 10.1 | 15.2 | 16.7 | 40.7 | 29.5 | 22.4 |
| IPDF ( Murphy et al., 2022 ) | 1.4 | 1.4 | 4.6 | 4.0 | 8.4 | 4.0 |
| DNF ( Liu et al., 2023 ) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 0.7 |
| DSM + Quotient | 0.7 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| MAD + Quotient (ours) | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Category | Value |
|---|---|
| Optimization | |
| Optimizer | AdamW (default betas) |
| Batch Size | 64 |
| Training Steps | 128,000 |
| Peak Learning Rate | |
| Min Learning Rate |
Score-Based Generative Modeling
Score-based generative modeling learns data-distribution gradients to generate samples through reverse diffusion, flows, and related stochastic dynamics.
See all 110 papers