CountsDiff: A Diffusion Model on the Natural Numbers for Generation and Imputation of Count-Based Data
Authors: Renzo G. Soatto, Anders Hoel, Greycen Ren, Shorna Alam, Stephen Bates, Nikolaos P. Daskalakis, Caroline Uhler, Maria Skoularidou
Organizations: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA · Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA · Eric and Wendy Schmidt Center, Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA · Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Diffusion models have excelled at generative tasks for both continuous and token-based domains, but their application to discrete ordinal data remains underdeveloped. We present CountsDiff, a diffusion framework designed to model distributions on the natural numbers. CountsDiff extends the Blackout diffusion framework by simplifying its formulation through a direct parameterization in terms of a survival probability schedule and an explicit loss weighting. This introduces flexibility through design parameters with direct analogues in existing diffusion modeling frameworks. Beyond this reparameterization, CountsDiff introduces features from modern diffusion models, previously absent in counts-based domains, including continuous-time training, classifier-free guidance, and churn/remasking reverse dynamics that allow non-monotone reverse trajectories. We propose an initial instantiation of CountsDiff and validate it on natural image datasets (CIFAR-10, CelebA), exploring the effects of the introduced design parameters in a complex, well-studied, and interpretable data domain. We then highlight biological count assays as a natural use case, evaluating CountsDiff on single-cell RNA-seq imputation in fetal and heart cell atlases. Remarkably, we find that even this simple instantiation matches or surpasses the performance of a state-of-the-art discrete generative model and leading scRNA-seq imputation methods, while leaving substantial headroom for further gains through optimized design choices in future work.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Visualization of CountsDiff’s forward corruption process (top) and reverse sampling process (bottom). The top diagram depicts the progression of a p -schedule, a pure death process. The bottom shows a single step of the generalized, birth-death sampling process.
Figure 2: Histogram of model-generated samples versus ground truth and distributional distance metrics (top); variance statistics (bottom) for a subset of dimensions. Existing diffusion models exhibit failure cases even in a simple toy dataset: Gaussian diffusion suffers from mode collapse, while masked diffusion overfits outliers (inflated variance). Full results for all ten dimensions can be found in Appendix E.1 .
Figure 3: 5 images guided by each Cifar10 class sampled from CountsDiff with guidance scale 2.0 and ηrescale=0.005 .
Figure 4: Nine images drawn from CountsDiff trained on CIFAR-10 with ηrescale attrition schedule for varying levels of ηrescale
p -schedule
γ
ηrescale
FID ↓
IS ↑
FI Discrete
uncond
none
5.73
9.12±0.05
FI Continuous
uncond
none
5.44
9.09±0.16
FI Continuous
1.0
0.01
5.20
9.64±0.17
FI Continuous
2.0
0.02
9.71
9.77±0.11
Cosine
uncond
none
5.76
9.29±0.18
Cosine
1.0
0.01
5.26
9.85±0.08
Table 1: FID and IS of 50k images sampled with from CountsDiff trained on CIFAR-10 for a selected set of sampling hyperparameters. FI Discrete with unconditional generation and no attrition is equivalent to Blackout ( Santos et al., 2023 )
Pointwise
Distributional
Method
Spearman ↑
RMSE ↓
Bias
ED ↓
log(scFID) ↓
log(MMD) ↓
SWD ↓
Zero imputation
N/A
1.91(0.01)
-1.31(0.00)
1.44(0.00)
-2.35(0.00)
-4.08(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
Mean imputation
0.17(0.00)
1.31(0.04)
0.00(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
-5.01(0.01)
-7.03(0.00)
0.12(0.01)
Conditional Mean
0.20(0.00)
1.12(0.01)
0.00(0.00)
0.15(0.00)
-6.23(0.01)
-7.49(0.01)
0.08(0.00)
MAGIC
0.21(0.00)
1.88(0.01)
-1.31(0.00)
1.44(0.00)
-2.35(0.00)
-4.07(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
scIDPMs, 1-sample
0.08(0.00)
2.25(0.02)
0.86(0.00)
0.68(0.00)
-3.04(0.01)
-3.39(0.00)
0.20(0.00)
Table 2: Benchmarking on scRNA-seq imputation, human fetus cell atlas with 50% MCAR. Mean (standard error). Methods are grouped into three categories: naive baseline (top), imputation/scRNAseq-specific (middle), and general generative (bottom). Best performance in each category for each metric is bolded, and second best is italicized.
Pointwise
Distributional
Method
Spearman ↑
RMSE ↓
Bias
ED ↓
log(scFID) ↓
log(MMD) ↓
SWD ↓
Zero imputation
N/A
1.00(0.00)
-0.99(0.00)
1.41(0.00)
-5.29(0.01)
-6.64(0.00)
0.03(0.00)
Mean imputation
0.26(0.00)
0.51(0.00)
0.32(0.00)
0.12(0.00)
-4.81(0.01)
-7.99(0.01)
0.02(0.00)
Conditional Mean
0.36(0.00)
0.47(0.00)
0.28(0.00)
0.12(0.00)
-5.82(0.01)
-8.69(0.01)
0.01(0.00)
MAGIC
0.09(0.02)
1.00(0.00)
-0.99(0.00)
1.41(0.00)
-5.28(0.00)
-6.63(0.00)
0.03(0.00)
scIDPMs, 1-sample
0.03(0.00)
2.22(0.01)
1.20(0.00)
0.98(0.00)
-3.61(0.00)
-4.20(0.00)
0.14(0.00)
Table 3: Benchmarking on scRNA-seq imputation, human fetus cell atlas with 25% low-biased missingness (MNAR). Mean (standard error). Methods are grouped into three categories: naive baseline (top), imputation/scRNAseq-specific (middle), and general generative (bottom). Best performance in each category for each metric is bolded, and second best is italicized.
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Converted p -schedule from Blackout Diffusion (see B.2 ) versus cosine p -schedule
Figure 6: Weights from Blackout Diffusion versus proposed p -schedule
Real Data
CountsDiff
Gaussian
Masked
Dimension
(Ground Truth)
( Ours )
Dim 0
0.78
0.55
0.19
3.06
Dim 1
4.71
1.99
0.46
9.22
Dim 2
0.10
0.07
0.01
1.89
Dim 3
0.12
0.08
0.02
2.49
Dim 4
0.28
0.21
0.05
7.27
Appendix
Table 4: Variance of generated samples per dimension. CountsDiff (Ours) consistently maintains variance closer to the Real Data, whereas Gaussian Diffusion collapses (near-zero variance) and masked diffusion suffers from extreme outliers (high variance).
Figure 7: Histograms of marginals of dimensions 2-9
Figure 8: Joint Kernel Density Estimate (KDE) plots between dimensions 0 and 1 of real data (blue contours) versus model-generated samples (red dashed contours). Gaussian Diffusion suffers from mode collapse, resulting in a much tighter, less diverse distribution. Masked Diffusion exhibits a broader, more diffuse distribution with ’leaked’ probability mass and slightly less correlation between the dimensions, indicating outliers and overfitting to the marginals. CountsDiff (Ours) more closely aligns with the true data distribution.
Figure 9: Comparison of Binomial sampling standard rounding, Poisson with no rounding, and Binomial sampling with stochastic rounding across two different counts regimes.
Figure 10: Train losses and validation metrics throughout training
Table 5: FID and IS of 5k images sampled with from CountsDiff with the Continuous FI (left) and Cosine (right) p -schedules at various guidance scales with ηrescale=0.01
Attrition Rate Strategy
FID ↓
IS ↑
None
9.666
9.463±0.402
ηrescale=0.005
9.562
9.504±0.382
ηrescale=0.01
9.507
9.561±0.368
ηrescale=0.02
10.400
9.653±0.269
ηrescale=0.05
12.727
9.565±0.268
Appendix
Table 6: FID and IS of 5k images sampled with from CountsDiff various attrition rate strategies
p -schedule
γ
attrition schedule
FID ↓
FI Continuous
1.0
ηrescale=0.01
9.844
Cosine Continuous
1.0
ηrescale=0.01
7.637
Appendix
Table 7: FID of 10k images sampled with from 30 M-parameter CountsDiff model trained on CelebA for 500 k steps
p -schedule
γ
attrition schedule
FID ↓
Cosine Continuous
1.5
ηrescale=0.005
4.948
Appendix
Table 8: FID of 50k images sampled with from 60 M-parameter CountsDiff model trained on CelebA for 1 M steps
p -schedule
γ
attrition schedule
FID ↓
Cosine Continuous
1.0
ηrescale=0.005
7.580
Cosine Continuous
1.0
ηrescale=0.01
7.541
Cosine Continuous
1.5
ηrescale=0.005
7.217
Cosine Continuous
1.5
ηrescale=0.01
7.483
Appendix
Table 9: FID of 5k images sampled with from 60 M-parameter CountsDiff model trained on CelebA for 1 M steps
Figure 11: 25 images drawn from CountsDiff trained on CelebA with increasing ηrescale .
Pointwise
Distributional
Method
Spearman ↑
RMSE ↓
Bias
ED ↓
log(scFID) ↓
log(MMD) ↓
SWD ↓
Zero imputation
N/A
9.27(0.13)
-3.49(0.01)
1.73(0.00)
-0.32(0.00)
-4.50(0.00)
1.43(0.03)
Mean imputation
0.31(0.00)
8.32(0.17)
0.03(0.01)
0.87(0.00)
-2.89(0.00)
-5.19(0.01)
1.25(0.04)
Conditional Mean
0.49(0.00)
7.62(0.19)
-0.01(0.01)
0.39(0.00)
-4.29(0.01)
-6.65(0.01)
1.11(0.06)
MAGIC
0.39(0.00)
9.24(0.18)
-3.45(0.01)
1.68(0.00)
-0.38(0.00)
-4.50(0.00)
1.47(0.05)
scIDPMs, 1-sample
0.31(0.00)
8.89(0.11)
1.55(0.01)
0.76(0.00)
-3.16(0.01)
-5.11(0.01)
0.88(0.04)
Appendix
Table 10: Benchmarking on scRNA-seq imputation, heart with 50% MCAR. Mean (standard error). Methods are grouped into three categories: naive baseline (top), scRNAseq/imputation-specific (middle), and general generative (bottom). Best performance in each category for each metric is bolded, and second best is italicized.
Table 11: Attrition sweep across schedules. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error)
Table 12: Guidance sweep across schedules. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error)
CountsDiff Sampling Steps
scFID ×104↓
ED ↓
30
2.73(0.19)
0.01(0.00)
20
2.55(0.28)
0.01(0.00)
15
2.32(0.18)
0.01(0.00)
10
2.35(0.15)
0.02(0.00)
7
2.58(0.18)
0.02(0.00)
5
2.97(0.20)
0.03(0.00)
Appendix
Table 13: Effect of number of sampling steps on generation quality, measured by scFID and Energy distance (ED) between imputed and ground-truth test set samples. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error)
Sample-level
Distributional
Method
R 2↑
RMSE ↓
MAE ↓
Bias
Spearman ↑
Pearson ↑
ED ↓
log(scFID) ↓
log(MMD) ↓
SWD ↓
Zero imputation
-7.84(0.01)
1.91(0.01)
1.31(0.00)
-1.31(0.00)
N/A
N/A
1.44(0.00)
-2.35(0.00)
-4.08(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
Mean imputation
-0.86(0.00)
1.31(0.04)
0.48(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
0.25(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
-5.01(0.01)
-7.03(0.00)
0.12(0.01)
Conditional Mean
-0.75(0.01)
1.12(0.01)
0.45(0.00)
0.00(0.00)
0.20(0.00)
0.31(0.00)
0.15(0.00)
-6.23(0.01)
-7.49(0.01)
0.08(0.00)
MAGIC
-7.82(0.01)
1.88(0.01)
1.31(0.00)
-1.31(0.00)
0.21(0.00)
0.52(0.01)
1.44(0.00)
-2.35(0.00)
-4.07(0.00)
0.17(0.00)
scIDPMs, 1-sample
-22.26(0.16)
2.25(0.02)
1.18(0.00)
0.86(0.00)
0.08(0.00)
0.13(0.00)
0.68(0.00)
-3.04(0.01)
-3.39(0.00)
0.20(0.00)
Appendix
Table 14: Full metrics (fetus, 50% MCAR).
Model Method
Accuracy ↑
F1 ↑
Zero imputation
0.82(0.00)
0.53(0.01)
Mean imputation
0.81(0.00)
0.49(0.01)
Conditional Mean
0.82(0.00)
0.55(0.01)
MAGIC
0.62(0.00)
0.27(0.01)
ReMDM, 1-sample
0.82(0.00)
0.53(0.01)
ReMDM, 5-samples
0.82(0.00)
0.53(0.01)
Appendix
Table 17: Cell classifier results for scRNA-seq imputation on human fetal cell atlas with 50% MCAR. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error)
Model Method
Accuracy ↑
F1 ↑
Zero imputation
0.82(0.00)
0.54(0.01)
Mean imputation
0.81(0.00)
0.51(0.01)
Conditional Mean
0.82(0.00)
0.53(0.01)
MAGIC
0.76(0.00)
0.47(0.01)
ReMDM, 1-sample
0.82(0.00)
0.54(0.01)
ReMDM, 5-samples
0.82(0.00)
0.54(0.01)
Appendix
Table 18: Cell classifier results for scRNA-seq imputation on human fetal cell atlas with 25% low-biased MNAR. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error).
Model Method
Accuracy ↑
F1 ↑
Zero imputation
0.99(0.00)
0.94(0.01)
Mean imputation
0.99(0.00)
0.93(0.01)
Conditional Mean
0.99(0.00)
0.95(0.01)
MAGIC
0.93(0.00)
0.79(0.01)
ReMDM, 1-sample
0.99(0.00)
0.94(0.01)
ReMDM, 5-samples
0.99(0.00)
0.940.01)
Appendix
Table 19: Cell classifier results for scRNA-seq imputation on human heart cell atlas with 50% MCAR. Metrics are reported as mean (standard error)
Scientific measurements such as single-cell RNA (scRNA) sequencing often take the form of nonnegative integer counts, whereas continuous-state diffusion models approximate this discrete structure using continuous coordinates. Building on stochastic chemical reaction networks (CRNs), a class of count-native Markov jump processes, we introduce CRNDiff, a structured framework that combines count-space diffusion with inference-time conditioning on rare subpopulations. An independent birth--death instantiation yields a closed-form transition kernel for forward noising. This kernel enables reverse sampling via forward-filtering backward-sampling (FFBS) and supports data-driven selection of the terminal noising time, eliminating the need for a validation sweep. This tractability also lets us introduce tilted Feynman--Kac (FK) steering, a method for sampling target subpopulations from a frozen generator without retraining. By tilting posterior marginals before FK particle correction, steering mitigates importance-weight concentration when the target population is rare. Using scRNA-seq data from the human heart cell atlas, we test the ability of CRNDiff to generate cell-type-specific distributions. Across the three evaluated target populations, CRNDiff achieves the highest conditional fidelity among the evaluated generative models, with larger mean purity margins for rarer target populations. Generated cells preserve marker-level differential-expression structure. Replacing real training cells for the target classes with generated cells yields downstream classification performance approaching that of the real-data reference.
Yuxuan Qiu, Praful Gagrani, Tetsuya J Kobayashi
Institute of Industrial Science The University of Tokyo Tokyo 153-8505, Japan
High-dimensional count data arise in applications such as single-cell RNA sequencing and neural spike trains, where mappings between distributions across successive batches or time points form critical components of data analysis. The recent success of diffusion- and flow-based deep generative models for images, video, and text motivates extending these ideas to count-valued settings, but many existing methods either treat each count as a categorical state or transform counts into a continuous space, neither of which is natural or efficient when the count range is large. We propose count-FM, a flow-matching framework for count data based on a continuous-time birth-death process with local unit jumps. Count-FM learns marginal transitions efficiently in count space through simulation-free training of conditional transition rates, allowing transport between arbitrary count-distributed source and target populations. In simulation, count-FM variants achieve strong sample quality while using substantially fewer parameters. We further apply count-FM to scRNA-seq and neural spike-train data for unconditional generation, transport, and conditional generation. Across these tasks, count-FM yields improved sample quality, greater modeling efficiency, and interpretable transport paths.
Ganchao Wei, John Pearson
Department of Neurobiology Department of Statistical Science Duke University Durham, NC, USA · Department of Neurobiology Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Duke University Durham, NC, USA
Diffusion models are highly developed in continuous spaces for image and video domains. Recently, major advances have been made for discrete diffusion models for categorical data, specifically in the language domain. In contrast, diffusion models for discrete integer-valued data are less developed, despite the prevalence of this modality, ranging from images and music to gene counts. We introduce Jumping Up and Down (JUD)---a new family of denoiser-based diffusion models for discrete ordinal data. This is the first family of diffusion models for ordinal data which centers around training denoisers, which at the same time allows for bi-directional (up and down) perturbations of the data. The simplicity of the training objective, combined with the flexibility of bi-directional perturbations, leads us to obtain competitive results across different data modalities.
Division of Applied Mathematics Brown University Providence, RI, USA 02912 · Department of Statistical Sciences University of Toronto Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 1X6 · Sakana AI Tokyo, Japan